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".
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
> > > > This "should" seems rather unreasonable.
> > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 04:14:47AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > There is no "should". It would be a "must", but there's no "must" here
> > > either.
> > You're nit picking. The precise phrase is "would be required".
> That was my point. This phrase is a "must" form, not a "should".
"would be required" is not must. "would be required" is conditional
(or subjunctive). "must" is not.
> > > > 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.
> > > 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.
--
Raul
Reply to: