[OT] flame-fest (was Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: in-tree pristines...)

[Tom Lord]

    S>>>> Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences
    S>>>> University of Tsukuba

    T>>>> The mind boggles.
  
    S>>> Why?  Just because you disagree with my opinions?

It has nothing to do with the _opinions_ Stephen has expressed -- only
with the _way_ he has expressed and "defended" them.  In my opinion,
it is inappropriate for someone in his profession.  Given the
opportunity to display careful critical reasoning, he chose a
different path.

    S> Tom and I agree that I'm ignorant, although with somewhat
    S> different "spins" on "ignorant".  

Stephen asks us to believe that, though he has reached different
conclusions (in some other context) on matters such as software
freedoms, that nevertheless, here on the list, he's going to approach
the topic with the aim to learn and explore why some other people, me
in particular, disagree with his conclusions.

In a _discussion_, what each participant says is in some way
meaningfully _responsive_ to what has been said before.  I don't think
that Stephen's replies have been responsive.  Stephen has consistently
been doing something else.

For example, when I begin to explain a particular set of arguments
about how software freedoms relate to copyright and contracts, he
unilaterally declares the topic of copyright and contracts irrelevent
and writes paragraph upon paragraph declaring (incorrectly) what he
"knows" my argument to be and knocking down his own strawman.  (That's
not the totality of his underhanded rhetorical tactics, but it's a
good example.)

I don't think that anything I said that he replied to had much to do
with the content of his replies other than via appeals to popular
prejudices and myths triggered by certain keywords.  I nearly could
have said "the sky is blue" and his replies could have been just what
they were and that would have been just as much a _discussion_ as what
we saw (which is to say, not discussion at all).

Some consistent themes in Stephen's replies have been to identify my
point of view (which he consistent fails to capture in his paraphrases
of them) as some kind of naive leftism, flawed in the same way as RMS'
and so forth.  I am left with the impression that he mostly wanted an
excuse to shout that nonsense and not an opportunity to discuss.



    S> I believe that Tom is far more ignorant than I, while Tom
    S> claims to be an "exceptionally well-informed amateur", and that
    S> I am a forerunner of fascism.  And both of us believe that much
    S> of what the other thinks he knows is misconception.  Thus the,
    S> uh, "exchange of views."

    S> But what does that have to do with my workplace?  If one is
    S> aware of one's ignorance about the working of society, and of
    S> ethical policy, and wishes to learn, what happier place to work
    S> than one devoted (at least in name) to the study of policy and
    S> social planning?

I have not seen evidence that Stephen "wishes to learn".

I have seen evidence that, intentionally or not, his contributions to
these threads are more aptly described as "shouting down an opposed
viewpoint before it can be expressed by appealing to popular
prejudices, mythology, and crude caricatures."

-t