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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
