From: Mark Baugher [mailto:mbaugher(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com]
I have a very clear idea of what I want to achieve and I believe that my
view of the problem to be solved and the approach to solving it is
shared by
the majority of the application oriented people. I also believe that
there
is simply no point in trying to explain the value of that concept to
network
focused people who use elm or pine as their mailer.
Why resort to an ad hominem argument? I read this stuff as the worst
legacy of some antispam lists. It dumbs down the discussion.
Ad Hominem is a perfectly acceptable mode of argument when considering
whether someone should be admitted to the forum in the first place. We do
not award university professorial chairs to just anybody, we do not allow
buildings to be designed by just anybody. Reputation matters.
I do not want to spend the next nine months listening to the same people
re-open the same issues that they used to filibuster MARID out of existence.
The point about the tools used is not 'ad hominem', it is a question of
eating the dog food. It is impossible for anyone to understand the Internet
of today if they still use the tools of the 1980s. To understand the
phishing problem you have to use the tools that the majority of users use
and you have to understand why they use them.
Most people do not want to become technologically litterate, they want their
Internet to work without the need for any intervention or knowledge on their
part. That is an idea that many technolgists have a hard time understanding
to be legitimate.
Phill