On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 09:23:08PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: > Literally ad hominem means "targeting the man" (how he looks like, > sure, to take the more simplistic case... but also how he writes, how > behaves). This seems a non-sequitur. Are you trying to say that you consider the pointing out of a fallacy in your reasoning to be an ad hominem attack? If so, then rational discussion with you is probably futile. > Save me your lessons which has nothing to do with computing. Logical reasoning is relevant to all rational thought, *especially* programming. Digital circuits and program code aren't referred to as "logic" for nothing. > I did not say that you were doing fallacy (so forget all the nice web > pages about "logical fallacies") -- it would requires you to be really > involved in the debate. Is the fact that you don't point out the logical fallacies in others' reasoning is supposed to immunize you from your own being noted? > This whole mail you sent is only about my "argument" which "above > asserts [...]". Unfortunately but there's no argument or assertion in > a question. And the interrogative form denotes a question (there's no > sign of irony in this phrase). Your question appeared to me to be rhetorical. This is because it was a yes-or-no style question to which the intended answer should be obvious to all readers. For example, the question in my sentence above is rhetorical, and thus functions more as an assertion. I'm guessing that you feel all of my questions to RMS have been rhetorical. They haven't been. For instance, I asked him whether Debian ceasing to distribute non-free software (and not providing reference to it in the installer, and similar measures) was a sufficient, rather than a necessary condition for the GNU Project's endorsement. I never received a clear answer to that, and I still don't know the answer. I fail to see how the question could be rhetorical, since a reasonable reader could plausibly imagine both affirmative and negative answers to the question. Maybe the GNU Project has other criteria they would need Debian to satisfy, or maybe they wouldn't. > You are a major contributor to Debian, surely a great developer, but I > just cannot understand how to talk with you about something different > than persons in this GFDL thread. So naturally, the wisest solution > for me is to avoid any replies to you (and globally to avoid the > GFDL-thread since I got now a picture of the points of views) If you equate the pointing out of illogic in others' arguments to be the equivalent of personal attacks, that is probably wise. > It leads me to support Bruce's proposal -- a draft made by a small > group of persons from both FSF and Debian, proposed here, would surely > be helpful. That wasn't Bruce's proposal. Bruce proposed that Debian appoint a single representative to the FSF, and asked me not to publicly contribute further to discussion of the license. I'm not sure whether meta-discussions like these fall within the scope of self-censorship Bruce is asking me to adopt. In fact, I can find nothing approaching a proposal that a document be drafted in any of Bruce's nine messages to this list since he first declared his intention to "step in between" on 2 September. (His previous mail to this list before that was on 11 August when he clarified the meaning he intended the DFSG to have.) You may wish to ask Bruce for clarification, as you appear to be endorsing a course of action he hasn't proposed. As far as I can tell, Bruce is seeking tangible action from both Debian (drop non-free) and the FSF (fix the GNU FDL), not just the preparation of some sort of memorandum of understanding between the two projects. Personally, I think he's right to do so. -- G. Branden Robinson | The software said it required Debian GNU/Linux | Windows 3.1 or better, so I branden@debian.org | installed Linux. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpy_BEq1mGku.pgp
Description: PGP signature