On Nov 4, 2013, at 5:22 PM, Stephen Farrell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Dean,
>
> On 11/04/2013 10:42 PM, Dean Willis wrote:
>
>> Perhaps you don't intend it this way, but it seems to me that much of your
>> input (as well as a few others) on this list is of the denigrating,
>> futility inducing sort of manipulation that has produced the current state
>> of disarray.
>
> I don't think that's appropriate, being strikingly ad-hominem.
>
> Folks, please keep the discussion to technical issues.
>
> Thanks,
> S.
That’s not ad-hominen. I’m not saying there’s something wrong with the given
message BECAUSE of some other defect of the author.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
If I’d said “Your argument is invalid because you’re a communist, and everybody
knows communists don’t know anything about bananas”, that would be an
ad-hominem attack.
Rather, I’m saying that I don’t like the tone of the message itself. It’s
loaded with negativity that I find disruptive to the work process. This may be
entirely unintentional, in which case pointing it out might help. It might be
intentional, which would lead me to suspect that there might be some other
defect of the author that is causative of the behavior in question.
Now, if I just straight out asked “Why are you being so negative?”, that would
be a loaded question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
And properly categorizing insults is definitely a technical issue.
—
Dean
_______________________________________________
perpass mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
