Re: Ad hominems

On 2/25/2014 12:12 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> On 25/02/2014 19:39, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > On 2/25/2014 11:23 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> > > Although that text started with the word "suggestion", the
> > > text construction is that of an instruction.
> >
> > Instruction?  Huh?  That characterization warrants careful
> > explanation.  Please provide it.
> >
> > The note 1) made a suggestion, and 2) Stated a need.  It implied that
> > implementing the change would remedy the need.
> >
> > What part of that qualifies as "instruction" rather than, for example,
> > explanation?
> >
> > There was nothing tutorial, parental or authoritative in the note
> > making the suggestion.  Everything focusing on background and presence
> > or lack of expertise was introduced by others, in response.  Hence, ad
> > hominem.
> >
> > d/
> Dave
>
> First, please can I request that you take a less harassing approach to
> this discussion.
If I knew what you considered harassing and how it constitutes 
harassing, I'd be able to consider the request.  Given the import of a 
word like harassing, it's surprising it would be used without any 
explanation.  So, sitting as a standalone assertion, without 
explanation, it's difficult to see how your 'request' is constructive.

> I explained how I interpreted that that text when I first read it.
> That was a personal interpretation of the text on first reading,
> and as such requires no further explanation.
As nearly as I can tell, you are referring to the note posted with

     Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 19:23:42 +0000

and I don't see an 'explanation' in it.  I see the assertion that labels 
the text and that's what I was asking to have explained.  (It's the 
first quoted text at the start of the current message.)

> As to the later context concerning the original posters remarks:
> I was already fully aware that London would be their first F2F
> meeting when I read the OP, and I am fairly confident that
> Lloyd also had that context before he posted.
So?


> So, please consider that
>
> 1) There was widely shared prior context in the early
> discussion.
a) This nicely points to a likely source of misbehaviors in the IETF: 
confusing close, familiar groups that have plenty of context, with 
public, diverse environments which do not. This is not a private club, 
where behaviors can comfortably be whatever the members want.  This is 
an open, international forum in which there should be some expectation 
of professional demeanor.  In such an environment, challenging someone's 
expertise is warranted only in the face of their claiming expertise, 
which he didn't.
b) The prior context you are claiming is irrelevant to the exchange in 
question.  He didn't call on it, and as nearly as I can tell from my own 
reading of the IETF list, whatever context you are referring to -- and I 
don't know what or where it was -- it had nothing to do with the 
specific suggestion being made.

> 2) That everyone sees text though their personal lenses
> coloured by both experience and context and will interpret
> it accordingly.
What a delightfully "Through the Looking Glass" approach to demurring 
from responsibility for personal behavior.  It's especially amusing in a 
community that writes international specifications that rely on getting 
common interpretations, in the service of interoperability.
It nicely points to individual difference as if there were no shared 
conventions and meaning.  Since the essence of 'communication' is shared 
meaning, that's quite a trick.

> In the case of this text construct itself, I read it as an instruction
> because that is the style of text I might have written if I were
> issuing an instruction to the RTG WG Chairs as their AD.
OK.  So "do x; we need y" is an instruction.  Well, yeah, that works 
well when everyone has a thoroughly shared context, where no real 
explanations are needed.  Such as works in a tightly-knit team.
But that's a bit unusual -- and highly risky -- to assume in an open, 
diverse forum like the IETF..
d/

ps.  By way of noting a pattern of comments made on this thread:  There 
seems to be some view that disliking a speaker is a sufficient reason 
for attacking them (publicly.)  Of course, it isn't.  It's an excellent 
reason for ignoring them.  But not for attacking them.

--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net