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".
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:50:25AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > 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 On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 06:19:21AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > It is standard practice, when caught in a lie, to claim that it was a > mistake. Is it also standard practice to apologize? I am sorry that I made a false claim. Is it also standard practice to point out additional, earlier instances of the failure? I did make the mistake previously, and if you care, I can dig up a reference to that post. > 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". I didn't shoot you, either. > 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). As soon as you pointed out that you had made the changes in December, I went back and found them for myself, and admitted I was wrong. That's a bit different from what SCO is doing. > > > > > > 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's not really true http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01530.html ... your perceived problem "we can't solve some problem which package A ought to be useful for" becomes a much larger problem with your proposed solution. Now, granted, that wasn't in response to you. But your idea that I never described any problems that are created is false. In case the above is too abstract for you, I'll break it down: [a] Some people use software from the non-free of our archives. [b] That software would cease to be available in future versions of debian. [c] Upgrading that software becomes a problem when it's not available. [d] Dpkg will under some circumstances uninstall software which can't be upgraded. [e] Using software which has been removed from the system is a problem for some people. Is that specific enough for you? Or are you actually claiming that these sorts of problems can't happen? > > > > > 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. Copyright is a legal issue. > You claimed authorship; that means you think there is a > legitimate claim of authorship. You're confused: I have authorship -- I did indeed introduce a proposal with those changes. What I don't have is first authorship -- you introduced your own proposal with those changes before I did. Once again: this is not a copyright issue. You might as well claim that because you say "the sky is blue" no one else is allowed to make such a claim. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
