RE:Understanding the Principles of Argumentation #3

--1032203512559
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Rusty doesn't like people quoting him in signatures, but that ones a definate possibility...

Cheers, Dean McEwan. Currently hacking KGI, which I don't understand, oh and ask me about OpenModemTalk...

On 	Mon, 16 Sep 2002 18:36:42 +0200 	Daniel Phillips <[e-mail]> wrote:

--1032203512559
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.116.70.75]) by smtp.cwctv.net  with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.447.44);
	 Mon, 16 Sep 2002 17:40:26 +0100
Received: ([e-mail]) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S262544AbSIPQcU>; Mon, 16 Sep 2002 12:32:20 -0400
Received: ([e-mail]) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S262608AbSIPQcU>; Mon, 16 Sep 2002 12:32:20 -0400
Received: from dsl-213-023-040-192.arcor-ip.net ([213.23.40.192]:65415 "EHLO
	starship") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id <S262544AbSIPQcT>;
	Mon, 16 Sep 2002 12:32:19 -0400
Received: from daniel by starship with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
	id 17qyrb-0000Jv-00; Mon, 16 Sep 2002 18:36:43 +0200
Content-Type:	text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
From:	Daniel Phillips <[e-mail]>
To:	Rusty Russell <[e-mail]>,
	Roman Zippel <[e-mail]>
Subject: Understanding the Principles of Argumentation #3
Date:	Mon, 16 Sep 2002 18:36:42 +0200
X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2]
Cc:	Jamie Lokier <[e-mail]>,
	Alexander Viro <[e-mail]>,
	[e-mail]
References: <[e-mail]>
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Message-Id: <E17qyrb-0000Jv-00@starship>
Sender:	[e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-Mailing-List:	[e-mail]
Return-Path: linux-kernel-owner+Hell.Surfers=[e-mail]

This is the third in my "Understanding the Principles of Argumentation"
series.  Rusty has obligingly provided us with a fine example of an "ad
hominem attack":

On Monday 16 September 2002 04:17, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > Don't forget that the Unix way has traditionally been to use the
> > simplest interface that will do the job; if you propose a fat
> > interface you need to prove that the thin one cannot do the job.
> 
> Gee, really?  You're so clever!
> 
> You patronising little shit,

An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy where the arguer attacks the
person, rather than the issue:

   http://home.mcn.net/~montanabw/fallacies.html

-- 
Daniel