On 08/26/12 at 07:55pm, Bigby James wrote: > On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Felipe Contreras < > felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Bigby James <anoknusa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Having watched this thread (and the "Beware" thread) for some time, I can > > > say without equivocation that Felipe is not trying to "reason" with > > > anyone. He clearly doesn't understand the concepts he himself refers to > > > (rules of evidence, burden of proof, logical fallacies) and is attempting > > > to sound more knowledgeable than he is. > > > > > He has failed to present evidence for his own case while ignoring that > > of his detractors > > > > Once again, I don't have the burden of proof. > > > > > and seems to think that while his single anecdotal case counts for > > something, all others contradicting it are worthless > > > > You cannot prove a negative, no matter how many negative accounts you > > put forward, on the other hand you only need one positive account to > > prove a positive. You can have one million people claiming that they > > have never seen Congenital Generalized Hypertrichosis Terminalis, but > > all you need is one to prove that it does exist. > > > > This is very basic rationality. > > > > But you can ignore my anecdotal cases, you still have the burden of proof. > > > > > He attacks the credibility of those clearly more competent than himself, > > > > I haven't. > > > > > And for the record: An ad hominem argument is 100% fallacious only when > > it > > > serves to distract others from the subject at hand by making irrelevant > > > claims. > > > > No, that's called a red herring. > > > > > It is not fallacious to, for example, point out that Jenny McArthy > > > opposes vaccines while singing the praises of Botox on the grounds that > > the > > > former are "poisons." > > > > It's not fallacious to point that out, it's fallacious to conclude > > that because of this, his arguments against vaccines are invalid. His > > arguments stand or fall on their own. > > > > > it serves as proof that the target is not a reliable source of > > information. > > > > A bum on the street might not be a reliable source of information, but > > he/she might still be saying the truth. Cops wouldn't take their word > > at face value (or almost anyone for that matter), but if a bum says > > there was a crime, cops could still investigate to make sure that's > > the case. > > > > > but demanding the devs comply with his wishes. > > > > I am not demanding anything. > > > > Since your whole mail is nothing but a bunch of ad hominem attacks, > > I'll simply stop replying to you. > > > > Cheers. > > > > -- > > Felipe Contreras > > > > This is pathetic. A single instance of a bug in a piece of software may > prove it's existence, but it goes nowhere with regard to proving that it > matters one bit. Every piece of complex software has bugs; those bugs > won't be found if the software isn't tested, and since you're not willing > to participate in that process you've no right to harass those who have. > The burden of proof always lies with the one postulating, and proving a > negative isn't being requested. You don't have any idea what you're > talking about, and your attempts to be pedantic don't cover up this fact; > you don't even seem to realize your own failure. > > The reason you're not a reliable source of information is because you've > thus far failed to share the knowledge you continually claim to have > (knowledge about the faults and failings of software you don't even try to > use). You speculate, you throw around FUD and you act like you know better > than the people actively developing, maintaining and using the software, > and outright state that you don't need to familiarize yourself with the > very thing you're detracting. You're a troll, you've got nothing > worthwhile to say and, sadly, you grossly overestimate the weight your own > voice carries. You've accomplished nothing with this little "crusade" but > pissing people off--something that you seem eminently talented at, judging > by other exchanges you've had. If you can't learn not to speak like a > fool, then it's best to just remain silent. +1 -- Curtis Shimamoto sugar.and.scruffy@xxxxxxxxx
