Re: OT fallacies

From: Patrick May <>
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 09:27:57 +0100
Message-ID: <m28xod1g1e.fsf_at_Dagney.local>

"Keith H Duggar" <> writes:
> > Are you defending the insults?
> I was neither defending nor attacking them. But, I will answer your
> question for closure. I'm not sure if you mean defending the
> veracity of the insults or defending their social effectiveness. As
> to veracity, I prefer not to comment. As to effectiveness, I am
> undecided. Dealing with VI is difficult to say the least. And they
> pose a serious conundrum as partly described by Fabian Pascal in

     That's an . . . interesting defense of rudeness, but avoids the real issue in the thread that spawned this one. Mr. Badour, among others, immediately accused Mr. Martin, among others, of "ignorance" and "foolishness" without responding to Mr. Martin's arguments. Further, Mr. Badour claimed to have addressed those arguments but refused to provide evidence of having done so.

     The bottom line is that there is no need for such discourtesy in a technical discussion. If an argument can be refuted, refute it. Insults add no value and typically indicate that the person hurling them has nothing more pertinent to say.



S P Engineering, Inc. | The experts in large scale distributed OO
                       | systems design and implementation.
  | (C++, Java, Common Lisp, Jini, middleware, SOA)
Received on Sun Jun 04 2006 - 10:27:57 CEST

Original text of this message