[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Why the 822bis grammar is so painful

1999-02-11 00:55:22
At 07:24 AM 2/11/99 +0000, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
I've posted a missing-deliberations notice on DRUMS. Anybody who has
spotted Dave Crocker's lost deliberations should let me know.

Always glad when Dan deviates fully from technical content and ventures his preferred realm of aberrant human behavior. It is of course much more comfortable ground for me, too.

Unfortunately he takes a failure to respond to an irrelevant question as a "lost deliberation". Such excessive interpretation of non-data is always curious to observe.

Dave Crocker writes:
ad hominem

You keep using that word. I do not think that word means what you think
it means.

An ad-hominem argument ignores the issues in favor of a personal attack
against the opponent. For example, when Johnny Eriksson responded to a
new SMTP client feature report by saying ``Idiot,'' that was an
ad-hominem argument.

Danny boy, the term means "to the person". It means introducing personal content. It means distracting the discussion from real content and, instead, focusing on the person. That is what you do. Frequently. You aren't the only one to do it. Many of us have that weakness. Some of us have had it far longer than you, so we know whereof its failings lie.

In any event, a personal "attack" is not always required for a statement to be "ad hominem".

Perhaps that's because people are sick of spending huge amounts of time
writing comments that are ignored by the DRUMS management.

Perhaps they are sick of your constantly introducing delays.

Many interpretations of human behavior are possible. That's why ad hominem analysis of group processes like this are irrelevant. What matters is the technical content of the process and the support for them. At the moment, you are receiving no support for your objections. With luck, others will prefer to see closure rather than the endless delay you seem to perfer.

822bis and 821bis, in their current form, don't have a chance in hell of
competing with my web pages. Why not ignore them and let them die of

your web pages?


but perhaps you meant the IETF specs?

If your pages are really that wonderful, they will become the dominant reference for email on the net and you will replace that function in the IETF. sounds like a fair form of competition. i'd be delighted to see it pursued.

as it is, one could argue that you are pursuing a deprivation of service attack, by preventing publication of the new IETF specs, so that we could then find out whether the community prefers those specs or your pages.

hmmm, sounds like you have a conflict of interest and that all these delays you are introducing in the IETF process actually serve YOUR interests rather than the community's.

You know, legitimate standards organizations don't have this problem.

by gosh, you are right. they don't. it's only the pissy, unprofessional, illegitimate IETF that ever has problems like these, perhaps because it has such a nasty desire for true openness.

So, perhaps you would be happier playing in the x.400 email standards arena?



Dave Crocker                                       Tel: +60 (19) 3299 445
<mailto:dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com>             Post Office Box 296, 
                                        Serdang, Selangor 43400  MALAYSIA
Brandenburg Consulting
<>                       Tel: +1 (408) 246 8253
Fax: +1(408)273 6464             675 Spruce Dr., Sunnyvale, CA 94086  USA