Re: Writing for Free Software Magazine
On Saturday 26 March 2005 07:51 pm, Lee Braiden wrote:
> I don't intend to get into the whole magazine debate again.
>
> On Saturday 26 March 2005 22:35, Hal Vaughan wrote:
> > (Just to be clear, Lee, I am NOT saying you are any of these,
>
> And I certainly don't intend to get into a debate about whether I am a
> hypocrite, no matter how directly or indirectly you raise the question of
> my character, but...
Actually it wasn't an attack on you, at all. It was a general point about why
your comments below about saints and liars don't always hold absolute
significance.
But I can't help wonder why you felt a need to infer what I made clear I
wasn't implying...
> > I'm just
> > making a point that in a discussion like this, someone's experience makes
> > a lot of difference in the strength of their position.)
>
> On that individual point, I think you may want to reconsider. An argument
> has NOTHING to do with who wrote it. It stands or falls on its own merits.
> If a liar says something that is true, it is still true, and if a saint
> says something that is untrue, it is still untrue. In fact, to be sure of
> no bias, an argument would be best evaluated without any knowledge of who
> constructed it.
>
> If you're considering someone's account of a particular fact for which
> there is no more solid evidence, then their character might come into it,
> yes. But arguments and testimony are quite different.
Yes, and even a broken clock is right 2x a day.
And there is a lot more I said, which I notice you omitted.
In other words, in a world of black, white, grey and, as I said, myriads of
rainbows, you're still insisting on seeing only 2 absolute shades.
Hal
> --
> Lee.
Reply to: