Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Online book for usability

[James Blackwell]

James Blackwell <address@hidden> writes:
>> Your time is much more valuable proving to others that
>> you're some semi-omniscient being.

address@hidden (Stephen J. Turnbull) wrote:
> Oh, stop it.  Your ad hominem attacks notwithstanding

Heh. Are you testing me? I know better than to call what I wrote an ad
hominen attack.

1. You presented an opinion rather than not a philosophical argument. As
such, I didn't "attack the man rather than the argument."  As there is
no argument, ad hominen isn't possible.

2. There is no attack in the first place. In fact, I do quite the
opposite, stating that your time is too valuable for little ole' me.
Surely there are more worthy things you could be doing -- writing books,
teaching your students (assuming you have them), working on xemacs,
perhaps working on a patch for arch.... 

3. Even if you had presented and argument and even if I had attacked
you, it *still* wouldn't be ad hominen, as the credentials can come into
play when a priori statements are made. 

4. About the only claim that you can make is that I am incorrect in
stating that your time would not be better used proving that you're
smeiomniscient. However, we can't progress on this point because you
haven't provided any proof that I'm wrong in this regard.

address@hidden (Stephen J. Turnbull) wrote:
>                                                        on this list I
> _do_ have to support my opinions by reference to the text, in a way
> that you don't need to.  Like you, I found it useful to read that

Ahhh, so you agree. You're presenting opinions rather than logic.

address@hidden (Stephen J. Turnbull) wrote:
> selection, but I don't recommend that others do so, for the reasons I
> stated.  I think it's likely that a lot of people will ignore my
> careful presentation, and take your word on it, and that's as it
> should be.  You're a much more important contributor to arch in all
> ways than I am.

I'm inclined to agree with you; rhetoric isn't worth much.

address@hidden (Stephen J. Turnbull) wrote:
> But some people do find my opinions of interest, and the reasons I
> hold them.  

Bearing in mind that I know of at least one person that sees some value
in your comments, I'm willing to take it for granted that there may be
more than one.

address@hidden (Stephen J. Turnbull) wrote:
>              I don't see why you are trying to suppress them.

Shame on you! Nobody has bounding your fingers, cut out your tongue,
held your family hostage. Nobody has provided you with any ultimatum
set against the time you choose to type again. Nobody has threatened you
(at least in public) with any sort of harm. There is no supression of
your speech going on here.

In fact, I suggested quite the opposite -- that the power of my 
speech be limited by reducing (by exactly one) the number of people that
may be affected by my words.

I may not have the fancy letters appended to the end of my name like you
do, but I know better than *this*! 

Anyhoo, we're all people, and we all make mistakes. I forgive you for
implying that I'm some sort of speech nazi that doesn't know how to
perform basic philosophy. 

Hugs,
James


-- 
James Blackwell          Try something fun: For the next 24 hours, give
Smile more!              each person you meet a compliment!

GnuPG (ID 06357400) AAE4 8C76 58DA 5902 761D  247A 8A55 DA73 0635 7400