On Tuesday, 3 September 2013 at 21:34:42 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 09/03/2013 06:33 PM, Joakim wrote:
Sure, but I did provide demonstration, that thread.
That thread seems to demonstrate a failure of communication.
By whom? It's pretty obviously the zealots.
They have decided that open source is good and closed source
is bad,
just like the global warming zealots, and will make silly
arguments to
try and justify that, even to someone like me who is trying to
carve out
a place for open source. You may agree with their conclusion
and
therefore defend their arguments, but any impartial observer
wouldn't.
"Any" impartial observer would notice the personal attacks,
even if that observer was completely ignorant of the discussion
topic. "Any" impartial observer would interpret those as lack
of a well-reasoned argument and decide to spend his time
impartially observing something more interesting.
I call it like I see it. An impartial observer can determine if
what you call "personal attacks," more like labeling of the
usually silly or wrong tenor of their arguments and what kind of
person generally makes such dumb arguments, are accurate. If you
want to take a long thread full of arguments about the topic and
pick out a little name-calling and then run away, clearly the
argument is lost on you.
On Wednesday, 4 September 2013 at 00:25:30 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 September 2013 at 16:33:55 UTC, Joakim wrote:
Sure, but I did provide demonstration, that thread. The OSS
zealots repeatedly make arguments that are wrong, irrelevant,
and worst, just completely out of left field. This is a
common pathology when you have decided on your conclusion and
are arguing backwards from it: your arguments don't make any
sense and come out of left field.
They have decided that open source is good and closed source
is bad, just like the global warming zealots, and will make
silly arguments to try and justify that, even to someone like
me who is trying to carve out a place for open source. You
may agree with their conclusion and therefore defend their
arguments, but any impartial observer wouldn't.
You seem confused by the difference between saying something
and providing conclusive evidence.
That thread _is_ conclusive evidence. If you think otherwise,
you are deeply confused.
