Tim Smith wrote:
High Plains Thumper wrote: Tim Smith wrote:
High Plains Thumper wrote:
Tim Smith wrote:
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
He also attacked me and harassed an artist in attempt
to have me sued.
Nice fantasy. The reality is you ripped off an artist,
refused to stop ripping the artist off when it was
pointed out to you (on the assumption it may have been
an accident). He then told the artist about it.
Oh yeah, it is a nice fantasy for ad hominem attacker Tim
Smith, who once again brings up a really old settled
fallacy, captured in Google with all of its glory:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/de5aad026463ee2b
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy From: High Plains
Thumper <highplainsthum...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 01
Dec 2007 18:58:47 Subject: Re: [BREAKING NEWS] OLPC sued
by US based Nigerian company!
[QUOTE] flatfish wrote:
Tim Smith wrote:
High Plains Thumper wrote: [...]
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/5c4fb6d75517c9f7
Of course, that has nothing to do with what Flatfish
is talking about, and you know that. Flatfish is
talking about the incident where Roy took the work of
a commercial artist, who sells licenses for the use of
that work on the net, and decided that if he (Roy)
gave credit to the artist, he didn't need to get a
license, even though Roy was using it in a way not
covered by fair use, and in a way to diminish the
market for the work. The incident where, when
informed that what he was doing was wrong, Roy did not
do the right thing (which 99% of us here would have
done) and immediately take down the image until he
could contact the artist and work something
out--instead he kept the image up for weeks, before
finally obeying the law and the artists requests, and
took it down.
Here we go again, the same old, tired rants, non-Linux
advocacy stuff being hounded on non-COLA issues 17 months
later. You have a way of making a mountain out of a mole
hill, don't you, Timmy?
<snip>
Your rant has nothing to do with Linux advocacy.
Reference:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/
[quote] 1.4 The Charter of comp.os.linux.advocacy
The charter of comp.os.linux.advocacy is:
For discussion of the benefits of Linux compared to other
operating systems.
That single sentence is the one and only charter of the
newsgroup comp.os.linux.advocacy. The newsgroup's charter
is for the newsgroup as a place for supporters of Linux to
gather to discuss Linux, for the betterment of the Linux
community and the promotion and development of Linux. It
supports this as a place for those who would like to learn
more about Linux to come to learn from those who know
Linux. It does not call for it to be a place where the
anti-Linux propagandists to gather in order to discredit
Linux. [/quote]
Please take your off-charter rants to another forum, to
which they belong. [/QUOTE]
Read more carefully. Roy brought it up, not me.
This is an example of:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/
[quote] 7.6 Trespasser Disinformation Tactics
12. Blame your stupidity and lies on your opponent. Blame
your own stupidity on the Linux advocate you are dealing with.
Such as when you have made an unsupportable claim that suggest
a list of details and your are asked to present your
non-existent list reply with, "I don't have to list them for
you; you aren't bright enough to know what you're missing by
using X instead of a real Y, I'm not going to explain it to
you." Then hope that nobody reading the thread realizes that
your statement translates as, "I lack the knowledge or facts
needed to counter your position or your position is too
complete and accurate to be refuted. So, I will say things to
sound superior to avoid admitting you are right." [/quote]
...you being pwned. If you want to pretend Roy didn't bring
it up, maybe you shouldn't have *quoted* *Roy* *bringing* *it*
*up*.
This is an example of an ad hominem attack.
http://tantek.pbwiki.com/TrollTaxonomy
[quote]
Ad hominem troll
Ad hominem troll at its simplest, will attack people personally,
rather than the merits of their statements or methodologies.
The ad hominem troll often has already lost a rational argument
about a topic, and thus its goal is to change the argument from
being about a topic, to being about the people opposed to the
troll (which could mean any/all rational person(s) in the
discussion), in the hopes of both discrediting people's ideas
indirectly by discrediting the people, and engendering an
emotional reaction from the people by attacking their egos /
self-image. The "getting a reaction out of" goal is common to
most troll types.
The simple ad hominem troll is easily detected and dealt with by
calling them on their ad hominem attacks.
However, often ad hominem troll will start its discourse with
seemingly reasonable commentary, perhaps an analogy etc. Using
rational tone, they may lull you into thinking that they are
rational in general and thus their entire message should be
considered rational. Once they have established such an
impression, then they will then descend into personal attacks
which may even sound reasonably worded, until you recognize them
for what they are, nothing more than personal attacks.
Example: thacker. thacker starts by ignoring the previous comment
(which itself was a rational challenge to thacker's earlier
statements), repeating himself (see the section below on
Repeating themselves), then moves onto an analogy. Afterwards he
continues with personal attacks, starting subtly worded, then
increasingly harsh:
* "some here, yourself included, will not see nor understand
the parallels"
* "Your noses are simply buried too deeply into the
proverbial bark."
* "Or you lack the courage, will, ability to step away and
ask the truly difficult questions. That is a shame."
[/quote]
Give it up, Tim. The more you post, the more stupid you look.
--
HPT
|
|
