I tuned out of this argument a while back, I am not concerned about the outcome of this particular event, the problem is the setting of the wrong precedent. I think that Carl has fallen into an old rhetorical trap here. If the rules of a forum prohibit an accusation that you want to introduce the way to bypass it is to make a statement that is tantamount to the accusation but not the accusation. Then you wait for someone to allege that you have crossed the line, thus making the statement. So please, if you see a repeated implication don't take the trouble to clarify it. The terms of civil debate have loopholes for good reason. I am just reading a report of a government official (I won't say which country) who has very clearly and deliberately lied, making a claim of a trend in a series of statistics that have clearly been deliberately (and clumsily) manipulated. There is a repeated implication here that someone wants to become a martyr, why oblige? Incidentally the implication that someone has lied is not ad-hominem. I have spent quite a bit of time thinking about ad-hominem arguments since a common criticism of trust systems and moderation systems is that they are essentially based on ad-hominem reasoning. The term has to be used with precision and there is a side condition that is not normally recognized. It is possibly slander but not ad-hominem which is a logical fallacy of the form: A argues B, A is a bad person, therefore B is false. So an ad-hominem attack would be 'Todd Glassey believes that the NOMCON process needs reform, Todd Glassey is despicable, therefore there is no reason to change the NOMCON'. In the case of the government official the implication that they have lied is an inescapable conclusion drawn from undisputed facts. Nor is an argument of the form 'A has lied', 'A is a member of government B', therefore 'Government B is untrustworthy'. An ad-hominem argument is a fallacy if and only if the truth value of B is independent of the character of A. In cases where the truth value of B is in fact dependent on the character of A there is no fallacy. > -----Original Message----- > From: Carl Malamud [mailto:carl@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 7:57 PM > To: Theodore Tso > Cc: dcrocker@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Crisis of Faith - was Re: Adjusting the Nomcom process > > Hi Ted - > > I've tried to stay out of this, since there has been too much comment. > But, I'd like to amplify your point and some others I've heard. > > 1. I'm offended by Todd's repeated implication that Brian has > lied to the IETF. That is an ad hominen attack and goes well > beyond the stated purpose of this mailing list. > > 2. If somebody wants to change the way the nomcom process > works, they should do what we did when the system was put in > place: write a document and get consensus. The IETF is all > about running code, and that includes "business processes." > An I-D is the first step. > Repeated attempts to bypass the process (e.g., by making up > policy on the fly and posting it to the IETF list instead of > writing an > I-D) goes well beyond the stated purpose of this mailing list. > > 3. Repeated threats of legal actions, invocations of Jorge, > and other tactics meant to bully participants do not qualify > as reasoned discourse and do not contribute to the stated > purpose of this mailing list. > > I would encourage our sergeant at arms and our leadership to > take more active steps to keep discussion on the general > mailing list on track. At the very least, discussants should > be actively enouraged to move their discourse to more > specialized mailing lists. > > Regards, > > Carl > > > On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 09:44:12AM -0700, todd glassey wrote: > > > BRIAN - you have totally missed the point - No offense meant, but > > > your personal word nor any other IETF/IESG staff member > is what is > > > not to be relied on - whether you are telling the truth or not is > > > irrelevant - the process has a hole in it large enough to > drive a Mack truck through. > > > > Todd, it's clear you don't have any faith in anyone on the > IESG (they > > aren't "staff", by the way, they are volunteers), but at the same > > time, the vast majority of those who have spoken on this > thread have > > clearly expressed that they believe that all concerned were > acting in > > good faith, and that no harm was done. > > > > You may not believe that, but as a suggestion, your constant and > > strident attacks quite frankly weaken your own credibility. > So if you > > do have a particular goal of changing how the IETF works, > being a bit > > more thoughtful about suggesting changes will tend to > probably serve > > your goals better than your current style of attacking people like > > Brian and other IESG members. > > > > Regards, > > > > - Ted > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ietf mailing list > > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf