Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #32017 > unrolled thread

Re: What I learned today

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.javascript

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: What I learned today Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-29 04:32 +0100
    Re: What I learned today Maik Koenig <usenetspam@maikkoenig.de> - 2016-12-29 21:20 +0100
      Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-29 21:45 +0100
        Re: What I learned today Maik Koenig <usenetspam@maikkoenig.de> - 2017-01-04 03:52 +0100
          Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-04 10:48 +0100
            Re: What I learned today Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-01-04 09:45 -0800
              Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-04 19:10 +0100
      Re: What I learned today Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-30 19:12 +1100
        Re: What I learned today Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-12-30 09:30 -0800
          Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-31 00:39 +0100
            Re: What I learned today David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2016-12-31 07:35 -0800
            Re: What I learned today Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-01-02 09:34 -0800
              Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-02 23:41 +0100
                Re: What I learned today Scott Sauyet <scott@sauyet.com> - 2017-01-02 23:24 +0000
                  Re: What I learned today Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-03 15:58 +1100
                  Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-03 11:44 +0100
                    Re: What I learned today Scott Sauyet <scott@sauyet.com> - 2017-01-04 04:15 +0000
                      Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-04 10:59 +0100
                  Re: What I learned today Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-01-03 10:29 -0800
                    Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-03 19:50 +0100
                      Re: What I learned today John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-01-03 19:32 +0000
                        Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-03 21:52 +0100
                          Re: What I learned today Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2017-01-03 21:07 +0000
                            Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-03 23:42 +0100
                              Re: What I learned today Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-01-03 22:45 +0000
                                Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-04 00:06 +0100
                              Re: What I learned today Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-01-03 17:00 -0800
                                Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-04 10:41 +0100
                                  Re: What I learned today Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-01-04 09:51 -0800
                                    Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-04 19:13 +0100
                                      Re: What I learned today Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-01-04 18:17 +0000
                                        Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-05 00:30 +0100
                                      Re: What I learned today Scott Sauyet <scott@sauyet.com> - 2017-01-05 01:13 +0000
                                        Re: What I learned today Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-05 13:20 +1100
                                          Re: What I learned today Scott Sauyet <scott@sauyet.com> - 2017-01-05 17:57 +0000
                                          Multi-line string literals (was: What I learned today) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-01-05 23:29 +0100
                                            Re: Multi-line string literals (was: What I learned today) Scott Sauyet <scott@sauyet.com> - 2017-01-05 23:14 +0000
                                            Re: Multi-line string literals Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-06 12:01 +1100
                                        Re: What I learned today Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-05 15:22 +1100
                                        Re: What I learned today Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-01-05 09:06 -0800
                                          Re: What I learned today Scott Sauyet <scott@sauyet.com> - 2017-01-05 18:10 +0000
                              Re: What I learned today John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-01-05 20:38 +0000
                                Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-05 22:37 +0100
                                  Re: What I learned today Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-01-05 23:21 +0000
                                    Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-06 00:29 +0100
                                    Re: What I learned today Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-06 11:59 +1100
                                      Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-06 09:04 +0100
                                  Re: What I learned today John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-01-06 11:19 +0000
                                    Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-06 13:09 +0100
                                      Re: What I learned today Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-01-06 12:50 +0000
                                        Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-06 14:16 +0100
                                      Re: What I learned today John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-01-06 15:05 +0000
                                        Re: What I learned today "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2017-01-06 16:32 +0100
                                          Re: What I learned today Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-01-06 16:15 +0000
                                          Re: What I learned today Cezary Tomczyk <cezary.tomczyk@gmail.com> - 2017-01-06 17:47 +0100
                                          Re: What I learned today Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-01-06 18:07 +0100
                                          Re: What I learned today John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-01-07 18:38 +0000
                                      Re: What I learned today Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-01-09 10:33 -0800
                                        Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-09 19:57 +0100
                          Re: What I learned today Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-01-03 16:53 -0800
                            Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-04 10:36 +0100
                              Re: What I learned today Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-01-04 09:53 -0800
                                Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-04 19:17 +0100
                                  Re: What I learned today Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2017-01-05 00:57 +0000
                                    Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-05 09:49 +0100
                          Re: What I learned today John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-01-04 16:49 +0000
                            Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-04 18:01 +0100
                              Re: What I learned today John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-01-05 20:19 +0000
                                Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-05 22:22 +0100
                      Re: What I learned today Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-01-03 16:48 -0800
                Re: What I learned today Scott Sauyet <scott@sauyet.com> - 2017-01-02 23:24 +0000
                  Re: What I learned today David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2017-01-03 00:17 -0800
                    Re: What I learned today John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-01-03 10:33 +0000
                    Re: What I learned today Scott Sauyet <scott@sauyet.com> - 2017-01-04 04:34 +0000
                      Re: What I learned today Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-04 16:15 +1100
                        Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-04 11:12 +0100
                      Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-04 11:07 +0100
                        Re: What I learned today Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-01-04 09:58 -0800
        Re: What I learned today John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-01-01 10:53 +0000
          Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-01 12:36 +0100

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

#32082

Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote on 04 Jan 2017 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

>>Thomasses behavour, his style, his person, is attacked as though his 
>>knowledge, arguments, and ideas are lacking.
> 
>      His arguments are lacking.  They have curves in them.  That makes
> them rather difficult to learn from.

That may be so, but in a discussion, 
one should attack the arguments, 
not the person.

>2 His arguments are lacking.

This is already a falacious generalisation, 
as all of our arguments are sometimes lacking, and sometimes not.

I remember faguely that one time his argument was not lacking, btw.

Attacking the person is a lazy and ad-hominem falacy.

Doing it as a wolf-pack in the safety of the momentary majority
is just being mean, I mean.

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32092

On Wed, 04 Jan 2017 10:36:10 +0100, "Evertjan."
<exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:

>Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote on 04 Jan 2017 in 
>comp.lang.javascript:
>
>>>Thomasses behavour, his style, his person, is attacked as though his 
>>>knowledge, arguments, and ideas are lacking.
>> 
>>      His arguments are lacking.  They have curves in them.  That makes
>> them rather difficult to learn from.
>
>That may be so, but in a discussion, 
>one should attack the arguments, 
>not the person.

     I do attack the arguments.

>>2 His arguments are lacking.
>
>This is already a falacious generalisation, 
>as all of our arguments are sometimes lacking, and sometimes not.
>
>I remember faguely that one time his argument was not lacking, btw.
>
>Attacking the person is a lazy and ad-hominem falacy.

     Is that why you keep doing that to me and others in this group?

>Doing it as a wolf-pack in the safety of the momentary majority
>is just being mean, I mean.

     Maybe, it is just that the majority happens to be correct and
thus attracts more adherents.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32096

Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote on 04 Jan 2017 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

>>Attacking the person is a lazy and ad-hominem falacy.
> 
> Is that why you keep doing that to me and others in this group?

Ah, playing the being-insulted falacy?

I attack arguments and actions, never, I hope, persons.

If one feels insulted by having their arguments or actions attacked,
that is a downright silly move, though perhaps somtimes just a strategy.

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32099

On 2017-01-04, Evertjan. <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:
> Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote on 04 Jan 2017 in 
> comp.lang.javascript:
>>>Attacking the person is a lazy and ad-hominem falacy.
>> 
>> Is that why you keep doing that to me and others in this group?
>
> Ah, playing the being-insulted falacy?

Oh, that is just too good.
If anyone insults you, they are making the "ad hominem" fallacy.
If you insult others, they are making the "being-insulted" fallacy.
My hat is off to you sir.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32104

Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote on 05 Jan 2017 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> On 2017-01-04, Evertjan. <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:
>> Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote on 04 Jan 2017 in 
>> comp.lang.javascript:
>>>>Attacking the person is a lazy and ad-hominem falacy.
>>> 
>>> Is that why you keep doing that to me and others in this group?
>>
>> Ah, playing the being-insulted falacy?
> 
> Oh, that is just too good.
> If anyone insults you, they are making the "ad hominem" fallacy.

No one is insulting me at the moment.
That would be a treat, btw, as I am noet that easily insulted.

> If you insult others, they are making the "being-insulted" fallacy.

I am not insulting others, because I never [I hope and  trust] play the ad-
hominem game, but someones ideas, be it programmatic or religious, and 
actions are fair game to me.

Others might be insulted by not respecting [their] ideas,
but that is their problem, and while it is not my intention,
I won't mind if they are so silly as to be insulted by that.

> My hat is off to you sir.

Thank you for the compliment, but keep it on, it's cold outside. 

I however abhor the actions by some in this NG to say that because someone's 
ideas, actions, advices, programmativc solutions, or behavour styles are 
concidered bad, saying that [therfore] the person is bad.

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32088

On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 21:52:45 +0100, "Evertjan."
<exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:

>John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> wrote on 03 Jan 2017 in
>comp.lang.javascript: 
>
>> On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 19:50:01 +0100, "Evertjan."
>> <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:
>> 
>>   <snip>
>>>Thanking for agreeing with an ad-hominem attack is something else, and 
>> that 
>>>is because such ad-hominem attacks are part of the recognized logical 
>>>fallacies.
>> 
>> Evertjan, please stop using ad hominem to mean a statement of the form
>>   Person X is bad
>> then claiming that it's a logical fallacy. It isn't. To be a fallacy
>> there has to be a deduction, e.g 
>>   Person X is bad; *therefore* X is wrong.
>
>No, I will not.

You say that, but in the next paragraph you say the opposite.


>Thomasses behavour, his style, his person, is attacked as though his 
>knowledge, arguments, and ideas are lacking.

Unfortunately for this news group, that is what Thomas does to others
all too often. Have you noticed?


>THAT is the at-hominem falacy in it utmost glory.
  <snip>

When has anyone said Thomas behaves badly and *therefore* is wrong?

  John

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32089

John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> wrote on 04 Jan 2017 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 21:52:45 +0100, "Evertjan."
> <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:
> 
>>John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> wrote on 03 Jan 2017 in
>>comp.lang.javascript: 
>>
>>> On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 19:50:01 +0100, "Evertjan."
>>> <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>   <snip>
>>>>Thanking for agreeing with an ad-hominem attack is something else, and
>  
>>> that 
>>>>is because such ad-hominem attacks are part of the recognized logical 
>>>>fallacies.
>>> 
>>> Evertjan, please stop using ad hominem to mean a statement of the form
>>>   Person X is bad
>>> then claiming that it's a logical fallacy. It isn't. To be a fallacy
>>> there has to be a deduction, e.g 
>>>   Person X is bad; *therefore* X is wrong.
>>
>>No, I will not.
> 
> You say that, but in the next paragraph you say the opposite.

Nonsense, I did not. 
And there does not have to be such a claimed deduction.
 
>>Thomasses behavour, his style, his person, is attacked as though his 
>>knowledge, arguments, and ideas are lacking.
> 
> Unfortunately for this news group, that is what Thomas does to others
> all too often. Have you noticed?

No matter, that someone else does is no licence for you to do the same.

>>THAT is the at-hominem falacy in it utmost glory.
>   <snip>
> 
> When has anyone said Thomas behaves badly and *therefore* is wrong?

It does not matter to me if anyone said that or not.

You seem to misunderstand the ad-hominem falacy.

The ad-hominem falacy is that someone's arguments are seemingly attacked by 
attacking the person instead.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies>

"A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or "wrong 
moves" in the construction of an argument. [..] Some fallacies are committed 
intentionally to manipulate or persuade by deception, while others are 
committed unintentionally due to carelessness or ignorance."
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy>

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32110

On Wed, 04 Jan 2017 18:01:58 +0100, "Evertjan."
<exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:

>John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> wrote on 04 Jan 2017 in 
>comp.lang.javascript:

>>>John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> wrote on 03 Jan 2017 in
>>>comp.lang.javascript: 

  <snip>
>>>> Evertjan, please stop using ad hominem to mean a statement of the form
>>>>   Person X is bad
>>>> then claiming that it's a logical fallacy. It isn't. To be a fallacy
>>>> there has to be a deduction, e.g 
>>>>   Person X is bad; *therefore* X is wrong.

  <snip>
>You seem to misunderstand the ad-hominem falacy.
>
>The ad-hominem falacy is that someone's arguments are seemingly attacked by 
>attacking the person instead.
>
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem>
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies>
>
>"A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or "wrong 
>moves" in the construction of an argument. [..] Some fallacies are committed 
>intentionally to manipulate or persuade by deception, while others are 
>committed unintentionally due to carelessness or ignorance."
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy>

I don't understand why you think I misunderstand the ad-hominem
fallacy.

I'm using 'fallacy' in the technical sense you quote from Wikepedia.

And I've said that an ad hominem argument is an argument of the form
  'Because he is bad his argument must be wrong'.
By the way, there is an implied statement preceding this argument. It
is
  'Every argument by a bad person ends with a false conclusion'
It's this that causes it to be a fallacy as it's not true.

Several people have quite rightly criticised Thomas's behaviour, but
the criticism has not been used to doubt or deny his conclusions.

You can complain about people criticising Thomas's behaviour, but
please don't pretend that it's any kind of fallacy, because it isn't.

  John

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32112

John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> wrote on 05 Jan 2017 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> I don't understand why you think I misunderstand the ad-hominem
> fallacy.

Well, I obviously did, when I said so.

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32075

On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 19:50:01 +0100, "Evertjan."
<exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:

>Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote on 03 Jan 2017 in 
>comp.lang.javascript:
>
>> On Mon, 2 Jan 2017 23:24:15 -0000 (UTC), Scott Sauyet
>> <scott@sauyet.com> wrote:
>> 
>> [snip]
>> 
>>      Thank you.  You got it quite fine.  Evertjan worked very hard to
>> refute my post, and the straining at gnats showed.
>
>Thanking someone because he or she agrees with you is a strange, perhaps 
>morbid, gesture, because agreeing with an argument is not, or should not be, 
>done to please you, but because of the content of such argument.

     My, my, but you are fond of imputing motives to others.

     I did not thank him because he agreed with me so much as that he
bothered to post.  He stated my case in different words.  It is a good
reality check that I did reasonably well in my statements.

>Thanking for agreeing with an ad-hominem attack is something else, and that 
>is because such ad-hominem attacks are part of the recognized logical 
>fallacies.

     Calling something an ad hominem attack when it is not is also a
logical fallacy.

>"Ad hominem, short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which 
>an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other 
>attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the 
>argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem>

     I have been attacking the substance of his statements: they have
curves in them.  This makes them rather less useful.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32057

Evertjan wrote:
> Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> Evertjan wrote:
>>> Gene Wirchenko wrote:

>>>> I KFed him long ago.  From what I see in other comments, it was and
>>>> continues to be a good decision.
>>>
>>> Wow, so your argument just rests on authority,
>>> you are acting like a religious sectarian:
>>> "I don't want to know what he said,
>>> because it is not what we believe to be the true faith".
>> 
>>      How do you get things so wrong?
>> 
>>   1) I am not relying on anyone's authority.
> 
> You wrote: "From what I see in other comments, it was and continues to
> be a good decision."
> 
> Those other comments, are they not the "authority" on which you profess
> the quality of your decision?

Killfiling someone -- except in some extreme situations where you refuse 
to view any thread in which the subject has posted -- does not stop you 
from seeing someone's comments when they are quoted by another.  Thomas 
Lahn is quoted plenty often; it's easy enough to imagine that Gene 
Wirchenko has seen plenty of Mr. Lahn's posts, even though he has him 
KF'd.

There is no reason to expect that Mr. Wirchenko is relying on external 
authority for his decision.  Thomas Lahn's own words could easily 
reinforce his decision on their own.


>>   3) I would discard a bad textbook.
> 
> On what basis do you decide such "badness"?

Whether it's a moral judgment or a utilitarian decision about fitness for 
his task or some other choice, why would you question his decision in 
this matter?

>>  Similarly, I discard (ignore) other bad information sources.
> 
> Same objection. You can discard (ignore) because you are a free person,
> but you would have to be knowledgable or believing in authority to label
> someting as "bad".

He has to be knowledgeable only so far as making that call for his own 
purposes.  If Mr. Wirchenko decided that a good source is one that he 
could learn from without being subjected to too much snark, pedantry, or 
superciliousness, do you have any basis to object?

>> Mr. Lahn is a bad information source.
> 
> Ah, because you do not like his style?
> 
> Methinks that is bad judgement.

And on what do you base your idea here of "bad"?


>>> You are confusing dislike for someone with his arguments,
>>> which is the kind of ad hominem falacy one should distrust severely.
>> 
>>      No.  I do not like his arguments.  That he has continued on and
>> on with them has engendered some dislike.  The dislike of his
>> argumentative style came first.
> 
> So it is not the arguments but the style.

Why in the world cannot not be *both*?

> [ ... ]

>>      Since I can see comments of his in other posts, it is not as if I
>> never see anything of his.  I can see that his style does not seem to
>> have changed.
> 
> Indeed, you confuse style with the content of arguments.

To assume they are entirely independent is ridiculous.


>>      Quite a nonsensical post on your part.
> 
> Why "on your part"?
> Again you confuse arguments with who says it.

It's never clear when talking in English with one who is not a native 
speaker when some idiom is getting in the way.  That was just another way 
of saying, "Your post was quite nonsensical."  It doesn't refer to you 
except indirectly as the author of the post.

  
>> Sincerely,
> 
> Are you sure?

People who challenge others' sincerity seem the ones most likely to be 
posting insincere messages.  People who respond to social niceties with 
aggression are a big part of what's wrong with electronic communications.

  -- Scott

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32061

On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 6:26:31 PM UTC-5, Scott Sauyet wrote:
> Evertjan wrote:
> > Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> >> Evertjan wrote:
> >>> Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> 
> >>>> I KFed him long ago.  From what I see in other comments, it was and
> >>>> continues to be a good decision.
> >>>
> >>> Wow, so your argument just rests on authority,
> >>> you are acting like a religious sectarian:
> >>> "I don't want to know what he said,
> >>> because it is not what we believe to be the true faith".
> >> 
> >>      How do you get things so wrong?
> >> 
> >>   1) I am not relying on anyone's authority.
> > 
> > You wrote: "From what I see in other comments, it was and continues to
> > be a good decision."
> > 
> > Those other comments, are they not the "authority" on which you profess
> > the quality of your decision?
> 
> Killfiling someone -- except in some extreme situations where you refuse 
> to view any thread in which the subject has posted -- does not stop you 
> from seeing someone's comments when they are quoted by another.  Thomas 
> Lahn is quoted plenty often; it's easy enough to imagine that Gene 
> Wirchenko has seen plenty of Mr. Lahn's posts, even though he has him 
> KF'd.
> 
> There is no reason to expect that Mr. Wirchenko is relying on external 
> authority for his decision.  Thomas Lahn's own words could easily 
> reinforce his decision on their own.
> 
> 
> >>   3) I would discard a bad textbook.
> > 
> > On what basis do you decide such "badness"?
> 
> Whether it's a moral judgment or a utilitarian decision about fitness for 
> his task or some other choice, why would you question his decision in 
> this matter?
> 
> >>  Similarly, I discard (ignore) other bad information sources.
> > 
> > Same objection. You can discard (ignore) because you are a free person,
> > but you would have to be knowledgable or believing in authority to label
> > someting as "bad".
> 
> He has to be knowledgeable only so far as making that call for his own 
> purposes.  If Mr. Wirchenko decided that a good source is one that he 
> could learn from without being subjected to too much snark, pedantry, or 
> superciliousness, do you have any basis to object?
> 
> >> Mr. Lahn is a bad information source.
> > 
> > Ah, because you do not like his style?
> > 
> > Methinks that is bad judgement.
> 
> And on what do you base your idea here of "bad"?
> 
> 
> >>> You are confusing dislike for someone with his arguments,
> >>> which is the kind of ad hominem falacy one should distrust severely.
> >> 
> >>      No.  I do not like his arguments.  That he has continued on and
> >> on with them has engendered some dislike.  The dislike of his
> >> argumentative style came first.
> > 
> > So it is not the arguments but the style.
> 
> Why in the world cannot not be *both*?
> 
> > [ ... ]
> 
> >>      Since I can see comments of his in other posts, it is not as if I
> >> never see anything of his.  I can see that his style does not seem to
> >> have changed.
> > 
> > Indeed, you confuse style with the content of arguments.
> 
> To assume they are entirely independent is ridiculous.
> 
> 
> >>      Quite a nonsensical post on your part.
> > 
> > Why "on your part"?
> > Again you confuse arguments with who says it.
> 
> It's never clear when talking in English with one who is not a native 
> speaker when some idiom is getting in the way.  That was just another way 
> of saying, "Your post was quite nonsensical."  It doesn't refer to you 
> except indirectly as the author of the post.
> 
>   
> >> Sincerely,
> > 
> > Are you sure?
> 
> People who challenge others' sincerity seem the ones most likely to be 
> posting insincere messages.  People who respond to social niceties with 
> aggression are a big part of what's wrong with electronic communications.
> 

Might add that people who post about *people* in a technical discussion group are generally idiots in any case. Of course that includes me on this occasion, but you are hardly a first time offender.

Nobody cares what you think of the sincerity of anybody else here. Post about JS here. Vent about others on gossip sites.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32063

On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 00:17:45 -0800 (PST), David Mark
<dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> wrote:

  <snip>
>Might add that people who post about *people* in a technical discussion group are generally idiots in any case.
  <snip>

Be careful! You are criticising Thomas Lahn there, something that is
dangerous.

  John

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32080

David Mark wrote:
> Scott Sauyet wrote:
>> Evertjan wrote:
>>> Gene Wirchenko wrote:

(Please trim quotes to the relevant minimum.)

>>>> Sincerely,
>>> 
>>> Are you sure?
>> 
>> People who challenge others' sincerity seem the ones most likely to be
>> posting insincere messages.  People who respond to social niceties with
>> aggression are a big part of what's wrong with electronic
>> communications.

> Might add that people who post about *people* in a technical discussion
> group are generally idiots in any case. Of course that includes me on
> this occasion, but you are hardly a first time offender.

Pot.  Kettle.

> Nobody cares what you think of the sincerity of anybody else here. Post
> about JS here. Vent about others on gossip sites.

Sorry, that was just a bit of silly bait that was not accepted.  Had 
Evertjan responded to some implied insult, I would have asked him why he 
objected to that content; it certainly didn't single him out.  This was a 
bit juvenile of me.  I simply cannot fathom why Evertjan is so bothered 
by Gene Wirechenko's kill-filing of Thomas Lahn.  It seems obsessive and 
ridiculous.  While I haven't done so myself, I understand the temptation 
and I know quite a few who have.

I've only ever kill-filed one person here, but I didn't import that when 
I switched machine, operating systems, newsreaders, etc.  You might 
recall who that was.  And speaking of that,

    
<news:51b82377-90e5-4cff-8c55-6def99016445@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
    archived at <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/
comp.lang.javascript/pznu3jcGUL0/JYHMXZgXbtgJ>
 
  -- Scott

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32081

Of the 40 posts that my NG reader downloaded this year:
   2 have been about JavaScript,
   1 about a symposium, and
   37 with various levels of bs

Interestingly Thomas provided the only post that answered (and 
explained) a JavaScript-related question.

Andrew Poulos

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32087

Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> wrote on 04 Jan 2017 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> Of the 40 posts that my NG reader downloaded this year:
>    2 have been about JavaScript,
>    1 about a symposium, and
>    37 with various levels of bs

You just added one of your dreaded type of bovine manure.

On-topic in every NG is Usenet Netiquette, you better live with it.
 
> Interestingly Thomas provided the only post that answered (and 
> explained) a JavaScript-related question.

Thank you for not following the wolf-pack, Andrew,
so I retract my manurious sentence above.

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32086

Scott Sauyet <scott@sauyet.com> wrote on 04 Jan 2017 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> I simply cannot fathom why Evertjan is so bothered 
> by Gene Wirechenko's kill-filing of Thomas Lahn.

You are hallucinating.

I never object to his plonking.

I object to attacking the person instead of his specific argument 
IN A DISCUSSION. [And not especially by Gene, but more in general, and as a 
wolf-pack.]

This is not politics, where it is said that opinions about people matter,
because you have to vote for such person, this is a discussion group.

In such group attacking the person instead of his specific argument 
should be concidered lazy, falacious, ad-hominem, and unnecesarily mean.

Plonking however, by all means, please do!

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32093

On Wed, 04 Jan 2017 11:07:37 +0100, "Evertjan."
<exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:

>Scott Sauyet <scott@sauyet.com> wrote on 04 Jan 2017 in 
>comp.lang.javascript:
>
>> I simply cannot fathom why Evertjan is so bothered 
>> by Gene Wirechenko's kill-filing of Thomas Lahn.
>
>You are hallucinating.
>
>I never object to his plonking.
>
>I object to attacking the person instead of his specific argument 
>IN A DISCUSSION. [And not especially by Gene, but more in general, and as a 
>wolf-pack.]

     Well, that certainly puts you at an advantage.  I do not see many
people agreeing with you so you neatly avoid being in a wolf pack
(whether actual or hallucinatory).

>This is not politics, where it is said that opinions about people matter,
>because you have to vote for such person, this is a discussion group.

     Better look up the word!  It has to do with dealings between and
within people and groups of people.

>In such group attacking the person instead of his specific argument 
>should be concidered lazy, falacious, ad-hominem, and unnecesarily mean.

     And you keep doing that with your wolf pack argument.  Perish the
thought that people could agree about something.

>Plonking however, by all means, please do!

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32042

On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 19:12:32 +1100, Andrew Poulos
<ap_prog@hotmail.com> wrote:

  <snip>
>I have learnt much from Thomas and I'm thankful that he still 
>contributes regularly here.

But have you learnt to tell when he's wrong and when he's expressing a
personal preference?

  John

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32043

John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> wrote on 01 Jan 2017 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 19:12:32 +1100, Andrew Poulos
> <ap_prog@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>   <snip>
>>I have learnt much from Thomas and I'm thankful that he still 
>>contributes regularly here.
> 
> But have you learnt to tell when he's wrong and when he's expressing a
> personal preference?

So what? This surely counts for every one of us.

We are all expressing our personal preferences for coding and looking at 
methods, but expressing ad hominem is and should be off topic, certainly as 
a method for discrediting someone's personal preferences for coding and 
looking at methods.


-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.javascript

csiph-web