On 6/20/2011 8:03 AM, TimSC wrote:
It would be nice if the committee would be aware of this long standing
problems and as[k] for help from the community too. We have
considerable human resources in the community and if people are over
worked, perhaps they should delegate more?
Also, it can be that someone tried to do something they think
constructive, they risk the ire of someone else who believes it should
be done differently. Credo experto - believe me, i've tried.
On 20/06/11 16:33, Steve Coast wrote:
I'd take a long look at how you have sucked up the LWGs time, Tim, before you
make these kinds of statements.
Steve, can you stop changing the subject on to me? It's ad hominem and a
violation of etiquette. And it is off topic and doesn't assume good faith. Do
you understand what I am asking, as you keep doing it even when I ask you to
stop?
On 21/06/11 06:00, SteveC wrote:
An ad hominem attack would be something where you complained about what the LWG
spent it's time on and I replied with a comment about your mother. Instead, I
replied pointing out that you are in fact the one using most of their time
recently. That would be called a rebuttal or perhaps a riposte, but it's not an
ad hominem attack.
Steve,
Thanks for responding. I moved this to a different thread as it is
getting on to a new topic. I tried to sort the conversation in to
chronological order so we can see the relevant parts.
Your definition of ad hominem is slightly wrong. An ad hominem is always
against the author of the argument being criticised. An attack on a
third party (e.g. my mother) would be merely an insult and can never be
ad hominem.
A better definition is an attempt to undermine an argument with
perceived negative attributes or character of the author (paraphrased
from [1][2]). You did so. The highlighted a negative attribute because I
supposedly "sucked up the LWGs time", and claimed I can't make my point
because of that alleged fact: "I'd take a long look [...] before you
make these kinds of statements". It's the same as criticising a
poltician's stance on family values because they had an alleged affair.
Tabloids say "how dare that hypocrite make statements on family values".
Both your point and this are classic ad hominem.
I think this is an important point. If we can try to rid the mailing
lists of these personal attacks, we might be more productive. Steve, do
you understand what I am trying to say?
Regards,
TimSC
[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad+hominem
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
