OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

oiic-formation-discuss message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Proposed Use case -- Interoperability in vertical and horizontal ODF markets

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Simon Calderson <caldersons@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Paul/marbux/whoever,
> marbux <marbux@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 5:09 AM,  <robert_weir@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>> > So we're all on the same page, note that ODF 1.1 section 1.5 says
>> > "Conforming applications that read and write documents may preserve foreign
>> > elements and attributes."
>> We are not on the same page. You simply continue to duck both the
>> merits of my use case and the violence done to all versions subsequent
>> to OASIS ODF 1.0
> This is simply not true; you're being dishonest.

I am on occasion guilty of error. When error is called to my
attention, I retract or amend my prior statement. Unlike some at this
meeting (and I do not accuse you of it), I do not practice dishonesty.

> Your use case is being discussed,

Neither its technical nor its legal merit has been discussed thus far
by anyone but me. All else is thread drift from that topic. I note
that you do not yourself respond to the technical or legal merits of
my use case proposal, but like Rob Weir respond only with a straw man
ad-hominem attack that blinks past my proposal's technical or legal
merits. You attempt to change the subject rather that addressing the
merits of my proposal or any technical discussion of it in this
thread. You have brought no better to any discussion of any of my
proposals' merits.

You raise only a straw man argument by mischaracterizing what I
actually said and ignoring all substantive discussion in the same
post. In other words, you chopped out a carefully selected quote from
my post, inaccurately restated what I had actually said, then erected
an argument on the mischaracterization. Straw man arguments are
logical fallacies precisely because they are premised on
mischaracterization of an opponent's position and attack only the
straw man of the mischaracterization rather the merits of the
opponent's position. See generally,

>and your proposed solution has been shot down on numerous occasions;
> and you simply won't or (more likely) can't address its shortcomings:
> youmake wild claims and accusations, with no supporting argument,
> and your proposals simply crumble into dust.

This argument is completely irrelevant to the technical or legal
merits of my proposal made in this thread, a topic which you have yet
to address. I disagree with your general accusation to the extent that
you attempt to imply that *any* of my proposals have been "shot down"
on their technical or legal merit.

I am not here seeking love. I am here to negotiate and to object when
my rights are violated.  I represent only my own interests as a
software user whose legal rights have been violated for many years by
a collusive oligopoly of software vendors, and plainly so in the
proceedings of this meeting. Any deficiencies in your own
understanding of both the technical and legal issues is your problem,
not mine.

I have provided the courtesy of explaining my proposals well enough
for those who are willing and competent to investigate their technical
and legal merits to do so. But to the extent that people's
investigation leads them to lack of understanding, that is their
problem, not mine. My proposals speak to those who do understand the
issues, not to those who do not.

> You've said previously that you're building your record of
> disinterest/disengagement with your proposals. Fine, but let's
> be plain. Do that, then get out of the way so that we can get on,
> and take your weak proposals and legal threats elsewhere.
> We're sick of them.

I am absolutely insensitive to what you choose to allow to make you
sick unless and until you choose to reply in a manner that is
responsive to the law and the interoperability problems the law
dictates that we solve. To the present state of my knowledge, the only
person on this list other than myself who is actually proposing any
interoperability work to the OIIC TC that responds to the governing
law is Dave Pawson  In my carefully considered opinion, there is no
incompatibility between my proposals and Dave's proposal to identify
the under-specified interoperability breakpoints in an adopted version
of the ODF standard. Dave's proposal brings specificity to a step
necessary to any technically and legally valid proposal for solving
rather than ignoring the ODF interop problem..

I am not part of the herd implicit in your use of the term "we're." I
am here, in the lingo of the international Agreement on Technical
Barriers to Trade, to negotiate the removal of "unnecessary obstacles
to international trade" that unquestionably exist in an
unlawfully-adopted international standard.

That is precisely the legal and technical problem my proposal in this
thread and my CDRF proposal are tailored to, although as I have
explained one can arrive at the same conclusion under U.S. or E.U.
law. That the herd lacks even the fundamental knowledge of the
applicable law and the technological measures necessary to abide by by
the law is the herd's problem, not mine.

I draw my guidance from the law and the technical requirements for
interoperability necessitated by law. Those who choose to ignore the
law do so at their own risk, whether they are part of a herd or not.
The herd's sickness of what I say is the herd's problem, not mine. No
one here is the ultimate decision-maker.

Ignorance is bliss, as they say. So do try to at least enjoy your
sickness. It is yours, not mine.

Best regards,

Paul E. Merrell, J.D. (Marbux)

Universal Interoperability Council

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]