Re: Ad Hominem (was Re: Raul Miller is lying scum [Was: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot])
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:32:03AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > Subject: Ad Hominem (was ...)
> > >
> > > No it wasn't. It was a well-formed argument with a conclusion in the
> > > subject line.
> > >
> > > Argumentum ad hominem would be "You're lying, therefore you're
> > > wrong". This was "Here is documented evidence of you lying".
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:50:25AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Wrong. Mistakes and lies are two different things.
> >
> > Here's documented evidence that you're wrong:
> >
> > http://www.bartleby.com/61/55/M0345500.html
> > http://www.bartleby.com/61/52/L0155200.html
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 06:19:21AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> It is standard practice, when caught in a lie, to claim that it was a
> mistake.
Is it also standard practice to apologize? I am sorry that
I made a false claim.
Is it also standard practice to point out additional, earlier instances
of the failure? I did make the mistake previously, and if you care,
I can dig up a reference to that post.
> I don't accept your claim that it was a mistake, any more than I would
> accept "Sorry, I didn't mean to shoot you. I thought I was eating
> toast".
I didn't shoot you, either.
> It is slightly less convincing than it would be if SCO claimed
> that they made a mistake in asserting that Linux infringed their
> copyrights (when faced with all the lawsuits that are piling up
> against them, claiming damages and legal costs).
As soon as you pointed out that you had made the changes in December, I
went back and found them for myself, and admitted I was wrong. That's a
bit different from what SCO is doing.
> > > > > > It's true that if your resolution passed we would need to
> > > > > > pass further resolutions to fix the problem you're creating,
> > > > > > but at present the above paragraph is simply false.
> > > > > FUD. (And irrelevant, to boot)
> > > > How so?
> > > An implication that problems are created, without *ever* describing
> > > *any* problems, now or in the past, so that explaining why you are
> > > wrong is impossible. That's "FUD".
> > I don't know what you're talking about, here.
> I'm talking about what you said:
> > > > > > It's true that if your resolution passed we would need to
> > > > > > pass further resolutions to fix the problem you're creating,
> > > > > > but at present the above paragraph is simply false.
> Here you have implied that problems are created. You have never
> described any problems that are created. This paragraph is clearly
> intended to suggest the presence of problems which don't exist.
That's not really true
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01530.html
... your perceived problem "we can't solve some problem which package
A ought to be useful for" becomes a much larger problem with your
proposed solution.
Now, granted, that wasn't in response to you. But your idea that I
never described any problems that are created is false.
In case the above is too abstract for you, I'll break it down:
[a] Some people use software from the non-free of our archives.
[b] That software would cease to be available in future versions of debian.
[c] Upgrading that software becomes a problem when it's not available.
[d] Dpkg will under some circumstances uninstall software which can't
be upgraded.
[e] Using software which has been removed from the system is a problem
for some people.
Is that specific enough for you?
Or are you actually claiming that these sorts of problems can't happen?
> > > > > Please do not migrate from generating FUD to outright breach of
> > > > > copyright (specifically rights of attribution).
> > > >
> > > > This isn't a copyright issue.
> > >
> > > Right of attribution is a part of copyright law everywhere I have ever
> > > heard of. It is the (usually automatic, non-transferrable) right of an
> > > author to have things they did attributed to them, rather than to
> > > somebody else (and to not have things attributed to them which they
> > > did not do).
> >
> > There's at least two problems with this argument.
> >
> > [1] I never laid claim to any copyrighted work -- I [mistakenly] laid
> > claim to having posted a couple concepts before you. Copyright isn't
> > about concepts, it's about the works themselves.
> >
> > [2] The phrases in question are extremely short -- even if the issue
> > were those exact phrases, copyright wouldn't work that way. You might
> > as well try to claim copyright on individual words.
>
> Handwaving. This is not a court of law; technicalities are not an excuse.
Copyright is a legal issue.
> You claimed authorship; that means you think there is a
> legitimate claim of authorship.
You're confused: I have authorship -- I did indeed introduce a proposal
with those changes.
What I don't have is first authorship -- you introduced your own proposal
with those changes before I did.
Once again: this is not a copyright issue. You might as well claim that
because you say "the sky is blue" no one else is allowed to make such
a claim.
--
Raul
Reply to: