On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:50:25AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > 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
It is standard practice, when caught in a lie, to claim that it was a mistake. I don't accept your claim that it was a mistake, any more than I would accept "Sorry, I didn't mean to shoot you. I thought I was eating toast". It is slightly less convincing than it would be if SCO claimed that they made a mistake in asserting that Linux infringed their copyrights (when faced with all the lawsuits that are piling up against them, claiming damages and legal costs). > > > > > 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. I'm talking about what you said: > > > > > 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. Here you have implied that problems are created. You have never described any problems that are created. This paragraph is clearly intended to suggest the presence of problems which don't exist. That is FUD. > > > > 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. Handwaving. This is not a court of law; technicalities are not an excuse. You claimed authorship; that means you think there is a legitimate claim of authorship. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
