| Markus 2007-07-27, 8:05 am |
|
>
> Markus, I've already KF'd you, because I find your posts misleading
> and argumentative. But since you went so far as to cite logical
> fallacies, I'll describe the fallacies that you've been commiting.
> Your main problem seems to be an inability to address comments
> without distorting them, which is classic trolling behavior.
>
>
> Markus E.L. wrote:
>
> Straw man.
> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
>
> I never said advertising was bad. I only suggested that your
> statement was inaccurate, because Jon hypes OCaml and advertises
> his book.
>
>
>
> Red herring.
> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fall...ed-herring.html
>
> The question is not whether other OCaml developers post to the usenet,
> but whether Jon has been trolling. He has been the only developer
> regularly making comparisons that are unfairly biased against Lisp.
It's the "unfair" actually that's under discussion. And I don't think
I've to defend my arguments against the allegation of them being
fallacies: I freely admit they are rhetoric, not more. To actaully
refute your "Jon is a troll" argument, it suffices to point out that
neither "he sells books" nor "he has a link to his book in his
signature" do constitute conclusive arguments in support of your
proposition.
I don't think I need to say more and the reference to
nizkor.org/features/fallacies doesn't wash, since were are not
discussing any more: Since when would I answer to non-arguments with
logic instead of just saying "step back, don't be ridiculous -- don't
you realize how far fetched you attempts to construct a case are?".
If you _really_ want to continue your "Jon is a troll" argument (and
from the responses I get as compared to the responses on Lisp
benchmarking in this thread I get the impression that perhaps more
people on c.l.l. are interested in branding JH as a troll than in
Lisp) -- if suggest we start again from the beginning: State your
proposition and than gather evidence in support. All that "he has
written a book", "he sells a book", "he has a link in his signature",
"somewhere [no reference!] he even admitted ..." is absolutely
inconclusive, not good for anything and to me suspiciously sounds like
a group of people is desperately groping for evidence to convict
somebody they consider already guilty.
If you all need kangaroo courts in c.l.l. to keep the quiet and free
of controversial posting: By all means continue. Without my further
participation of course, sicne I've already said most of what I had to
say.
On the other side I see an enforcement problem (c.l.l. is not
moderated AFAIK) and suggest you consider that -- assuming for the
moment, Jon really were a troll -- that the best cure against troll
has been so far to ignore them (see Xah Lee :-). Obviously there is no
sufficient majority for that in c.l.l which should give you and idea
how trollish JH probably is.
>
>
> Red herring.
I'm tempted to say <insult> here: I just explained to you, that I
don't know 'Greenspun' as a verb, so I'm not sure what it really means
-- and I explain. Of course I now get accused of "Red Herring". My
bad. Shouldn't explain.
> The question is not whether the term expresses a sentiment, but
> whether the sentiment is warranted. I don't think a simple library
> counts as "Greenspunning".
Well, but obviously it's not so clear cut: The library provides
features, other FPs have already in the core language. Jon argued that
Grenspun's 10th rule applies. You argue "it doesn't count as ..." --
an argument where I still percieve that you take "greenspunning" as
negative or a kind of insult. Admittedly I don't know what to make of
it. Is the hint to Greenspuns 10th rule "wrong" in any way or
"useless"? Or what is the argument you're trying to build: AFAI
understood it was something on the lines of: Jon is a troll. To prove
that you have to disprove my statement that Jons contributions are
"true and useful". So you take on reply and try to prove it's
nonsense, wrong or insulting (I'm not sure what). I think you can the
fallacy there. I don't see were that should lead us to.
>
>
>
> Red herring.
> We're not talking about the conciseness of pattern matching alone.
> We're talking about the overall conciseness of each language,
> based on pattern matching, macros, and all other features.
Not in this subthread. And not me with you, certainly. Jon's arguments
are useful and interesting, wether you like it or not, whereas your
shouting "Red Herring" at avery partial statement is not. Asking me,
wether "I find ... <whatever>" how that relates to the question what
Jon is, and I'm to bored and lazy now to look up THAT special fallacy,
but be assured: It is one: At least you're changing the topic.
Decide: Do you want to discuss Lisp with me? That was not how we
started and I've indicated that I'm probably not qualified and too
biased to be useful as an opponent regarding this question. I've never
decided against Lisp and for OCaml: It's just OCaml is good enough for
me, I don't have problem with the syntax, it is fast enough for me, it
has a useful type system and I met it at the time I needed it. There
you are.
Or: Do you want to discuss about "Jon is a troll"? I alread said I
don't experience him like this and cannot see it so clear cut that his
statements are untrue or not useful. The example you brought so far is
unsuitable to discuss that point, because it's not clear wether it's
right or wrong and one example of a false or useless opinion or
statement wouldn't even support that a person is troll that is only
posting useless spam on usenet. Do we really need to continue this
topic? Your logic is flawed and that's it (and you're confusing the
question wether Jon is right with the question wether Jon is a troll:
Somthing you're not alone with: Other contributors to that thread
already have argued in the spirit of "I think he is wrong, so he is a
troll").
| > Humm... I still find your comparison loaded: you rule out the use of
| > libraries for pattern matching in Lisp. Why?
>
[color=darkred]
> Regardless of its exact definition, it's a derogatory term that
> suggests an inefficient, unmaintainable, unnecessary implementation
> of features built into another language.
Well -- and how efficient IS pattern matching in Lisp? And if people
start to build their porgramming around pattern matching, don't you
think it makes a difference. I also noticed when quoting you
conveniently snipped the following piece of text from my last posting:
| In ML it also ties in rather nicely with the type system: In many
| cases the compiler will warn you about forgotten cases -- something
| I imagine the Lisp systems must have difficulties with owing to the
| dynamic type system.
> Macros make Lisp pattern-
> matching libraries both efficient and maintainable, and ML's lack
> of macros makes these libraries necessary if one wants both macros
> and pattern matching.
I don't see how ML's lack of macros makes any libraries in Lisp
necessary.
>
>
[color=darkred]
>
> Straw man.
No, it's not. It adresses a big issue in this thread: How people
discuss with each other and how they reach agreement: Some obviously
have decided that
"why do you ..." "because he sells books"
is a valid argument of some kind. It isn't and it won't ever become
(at least in a resonably rational community).
> No-one objects to selling books. Only to trolling.
Which again is proven by "selling books"? Dan, if you got a quiet
moment, just go back to the post where I came into this thread (that
with the "because he sells books" quote).
I'm not arguing pro/contra Lisp/OCaml or whatever. As I said: If I
think about it, I'm not qualified to do that and the arguments I hear
(_on the topic_, mind you) are not so obviously wrong or fallacious
that I could decide or see instantanously that a civiliced dispute is
unnecessary.
But I'm objecting to the way some people here communicate with others
-- and that includes you and this, your, post
[color=darkred]
> I don't contradict your lack of understanding at all, Markus.
> I totally agree that you lack a basic understanding of Jon's
> trolling and what other people have been saying to you.
Well, I see. I think that proves my point. Because I don't just take
your word for it (whatever), I'm bad and probably stupid (my "lack [of]
basic understanding of [...] what other people have been saying to
you). Are you (are the others that have been trying to tell me) a
usenet god? Or doesn't the usually rule, that if you want somebody to
think you thought you have to convince them, also apply to you?
And what's more: My impression is that the Jon-Harrop-Opposition at
c.l.l. is a rather vocal minority with a lot of poison to spent. And
that IS my impression. You and the others will have to live with that,
because you just can't take it away.
>
> Obvious straw man, made even worse by appealing to the straw-man
> fallacy yourself.
Well, I regret, I don't see the straw man.
> It's Jon who's making the Greenspunning arguments,
> and no-one objects to selling books.
No, no one. There is no wall, there are no wardens, there is no
prison, you're not here ...
BTW: Did I say it was you making the "Greenspunning argument"
(whatever evil that might be, it certainly sounds mightily depraved)?
> I think you're another troll.
Aaah. The old "I don't like you, you're a troll" manoeuvre. A usenet
classic, indeed. Nice to meet you.
Yes, please plonk me and refrain from responding. :-)
I've spent too much time on this post anyway. Can't answer you at so
much length in future, but the basic front line should be clear (and
the basic strategies also have been tested, like yours of sprinkling
"Red Herring" and "Straw man" liberally into selective quoting of my
post -- perhaps I can even continue the discussion with myself in this
vein)
(Personal I think I'm fighting against kangaroo courts and for free
speech, but that is an aside for other readers only.)
Regards -- Markus
|