Re: 18 months

[Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>]

Harald,

Monday, January 13, 2003, 2:00:32 AM, you wrote:
Harald> My asking for you to present the basis for your conclusions was not
Harald> intended as a personal attack.

Thank you for replying. I have gotten feedback that makes clear you are not
the only one who does not see the problem in your posting.

With respect to the real content of the topic being discussed on the public
list -- such as your asking for my basis -- I have tried to pursue that on
the public list. This separate thread is about something quite different.

First, let's be clear about the term "ad hominem", since it gets to the core
of the concern I am raising. Many folks think this is limited to calling
another an asshole or using otherwise extreme language. What the term really
is about is making an issue of the other person, by way of undermining their
views or distracting discussion from the topic.

You might want to take a look at:

     <http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/adhom.html>
     or
     <http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.htm>
 
So, here are the portions of your posting to which I took exception:

Opening paragraph:
Harald> your statement as written seems to be that we should accept your perception
Harald> of a pattern without question, and that counterexamples are uninteresting 
Harald> because they are exceptions or individual examples.

1.  Casts the issue as a matter of my perception.
2.  Accuses me of requiring blind acceptance by others
3.  Casts "exceptions" and counterexamples in terms of what *I* find
interesting.

Nothing in any of my notes warrants or substantiates any of the 3 points.

If you think that my postings have had any of the delightfully rigid and
personal qualities of Dan Bernstein, then I really do need to have the
details pointed out.

Also #3 completely misrepresents the very focused response I gave: When
talking about patterns, exceptions rarely demonstrate anything very useful,
since the term "pattern" is about aggregations. That is not a matter of what
*I* find "interesting" but what is relevant to the line of inquiry.

We are supposed to be talking about the IETF, not individuals.


And:
Harald> But unless we stop pussyfooting, I think we cannot engineer for reality.

After some paragraphs stating the need that I cite conforming examples --
and failure to do so -- you pop in the derogatory "pussyfooting" (def: "to
move stealthily or cautiously"). This is an emotional, attacking word. It is
a call to arms against those being cited.

Yes, it is preceded by "we" but paragraphs leading up to it nicely miscast
things, since nothing in my notes were either stealthy or particularly
cautious. In fact, I have raised concerns about a process that will take
12-18 months to produce any changes in the IETF, given the urgency of the
situation.


Harald> While it's no secret that I disagree with you on how to fix the problems of
Harald> the IETF, I think there's a fair amount of truth in the symptoms you have 
Harald> pointed out,

Glad to hear that.  Frankly I did not get that sense from your responses to
me.


Harald>  and that if other people investigate the same basic data, 
Harald> there's a fair chance that they will come to the same kinds of conclusions 
Harald> about what the problems are.

Harald> And I still don't think it's unreasonable to ask you to present those data.

I hope that it is now clear that that request was not what I was reacting
to.

d/
-- 
 Dave <mailto:dhc@dcrocker.net>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 t +1.408.246.8253; f +1.408.850.1850




 http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.htm
 
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html