[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Pledge To Killfile a person

On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 02:13:21PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> >> >> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/06/msg01598.html
> >> >
> >> > Looks like a perfectly justified response to me. I don't see how that
> >> > could be classified as 'provocation' or 'troll', because in no sense
> >> > did it encourage more discussion - it was quite clearly a statement
> >> > that he was being ignored because he was just trying to start an
> >> > argument. I suppose you could claim it was a 'put-down', but I claim
> >> > it is a factually accurate description of the parent mail and I
> >> > challenge anybody to prove otherwise.
> >> 
> >> This is an example of one of the significant limitations (perhaps
> >> good, perhaps not) in Debian's current culture: A lot of people think
> >> rudeness is excused -- and not just excusable -- when it saves them
> >> future effort.
> >
> > Then I don't think you've got any grounds to accuse me of it
> > specifically, and not any of the others. Regardless of whether or not
> > it happens to be my belief (it isn't).
> How else should I consider a mail that simply declares "Troll."?  Do
> you think it is not rude?  Or was the point of the brevity something
> besides saving yourself the effort of justifying the judgment?

Anything more verbose would merely be feeding the troll.

> >> The parent mail is not clearly a troll to me, and I
> >> think it is preposterous to assume something is a troll until proven
> >> otherwise.
> >
> > The parent mail is an instance of argumentum ad hominem and a claim to
> > authority, combined with a straw man, on a subject which is tangential
> > to the one under discussion, which is written in a clearly
> > antagonistic manner and adds no new information or valid arguments. If
> > that's not a troll, then what is?
> When you held yourself up as knowing the security mechanisms used by
> every CA, it was entirely appropriate to puncture that impression.

Oh come now, the social attacks against security in large
organisations are common knowledge, at least to anybody who reads
CRYPTO-GRAM or similar publications. That's hardly a claim to

> > And why are you attacking me instead?
> I am attacking you because you asked me to explain my selection of
> posts to illustrate when you send things that "are little more than
> provocations, put-downs and trolls."  If you did not want me to
> elaborate on why your posts qualify, you should not have asked.

Those posts were in response to the attacks[0], and came after
them. So you don't have a reason, or at least not one you're willing
to state.

> >> >> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/06/msg00166.html
> >> >
> >> > I can see nothing in this mail that could be even remotely like
> >> > that. Explain your claim.
> >> 
> >> It was counterproductive in that it did not advance any discussion.
> >
> > Interesting definition. I have not encoutered this one before.
> It is an example of counterproductive, not a definition.  Inflammatory
> remarks which do not also illuminate "are little more than
> provocations, put-downs and trolls", and such remarks are only one way
> to be counterproductive in one's discourse.  I assumed that their
> counterproductive nature was why you chose that description when
> asking people to find objectionable posts of yours.

I did not choose that description. I challenged other people who were
using it.

> >> Insults never build consensus: even when they drive away
> >> individuals who disagree, they also splinter the consensus.
> >
> > This statement appears disconnected from the rest of the paragraph; if
> > it was meant to be a point, please restate it.
> It was an elaboration of why the complaint about consensus-building
> was hypocritical: because the post itself worked against consensus.

So your claim is that you can never object to people for working
against consensus because doing so would be working against
consensus. Well, that appears to deny you from being allowed to make
that point, so I think your argument is self-defeating.

[0] http://www.pledgebank.com/killfileandrew

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: