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?
ok.
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?
d/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
PRESIDENTS DAY OPEN HOUSE, 2/13
<http://www.brandenburg.com/misc/presday/presday-invite.gif>
Dave Crocker Tel: +60 (19) 3299 445
<mailto:dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com> Post Office Box 296,
U.P.M.
Serdang, Selangor 43400 MALAYSIA
Brandenburg Consulting
<http://www.brandenburg.com> Tel: +1 (408) 246 8253
Fax: +1(408)273 6464 675 Spruce Dr., Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA
