Re: Posting nettiquette

[marbux <marbux@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 12:49 AM, Jan Wildeboer <jwildebo@redhat.com> wrote:
> I will not fuel this fire.

If this be a fire, you already did with your last post, Jan. And here
you go again with your latest post.

> I for one prefer on-topic threads. And wrt having no arguments - marbux, I
> have nothing to say to your TC ranting.

I don't agree that it is ranting and I have explained at length why,
again offering evidence  citations, links, and legal authorities to
back up my explanation. Again you offer no substance to back your mere
labeling of my post as "ranting."

As you seem to believe that the
> whole list must know what Rob does right or wrong from your individual POV

You simply ignore that my points were supported by evidence and
quotations, citations and links. I did not rely only on my point of
view. Since you offer no such supporting material for your statement
in response, I will presume that you have none.

I'll also note here that my post you respond to was not about Rob
Weir's behavior. Evidence of Rob's behavior was offered only in
support of points I made in responding to the precise points you made.
His was not the only behavior discussed.

> and you deliberately decide to put it in the tail of an unrelated thread,

Have you never heard of thread drift, sir? As I pointed out to you,
the change of subject horse you ride was let out of the barn by Dennis
before me and was responded to by Rob Weir as well. Yet you single me
out for your criticism. Why no criticism of Rob or Dennis for changing
the subject? Why focus on the person who responded to their changes in
subject? This is not to say that I think either Rob or Dennis did
anything wrong by posting their topics. I do not. But I do not
understand why you have singled me out for your reproach.

I
> decided to point out that I oppose to such behaviour.

And I disagreed with your characterization of my behavior and provided
evidence, authorities, citations, and links. I did not "hijack" a
thread any more than Rob and Dennis did and I did not engage in
"trollish behavior." Sir, I am utterly sincere in everything I said.
If you believe otherwise, you will have to share the factual bases for
your belief if you want me to address those bases.

Also, you might have raised your objection without without relying on
emotive terms like like "trollish" and "highjacking a thread."


> Feel free to take it as ad hominem attack. Wasn't meant that way.

That doesn't change in the least the fact that you attacked my person
with emotive words ("trollish," "hijacking") rather than the merits of
what I had written. That, sir, is the argumentum ad hominem abusive
fallacy. It was also yet another change in the subject of the thread,
the very thing you accuse me of. You could have begun a new thread to
level your charge, as you have done this time around.

, but from
> experience I knew what to expect. I was not disappointed ;-)

You come very close to saying that your original post was intended to
provoke me, sir. Is that what you intended?

Sincerely,

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

-- 
Universal Interoperability Council
<http:www.universal-interop-council.org>