RE: [OT] Re: Troll Tech [was Re: Sco vs. IBM]

[Watson, Craig]

[snip]
> 
> I evaluate the argument based upon its merits. If
> I'm not competent to evaluate the argument on its
> merits, I'm not competent to have an opinion at all.
> Essentially, you're arguing that ad hominem is a valid
> reasoning tool, even to reject arguments in which you
> see no flaw.
[snip]

The problem here goes back as far as Plato and his cave.
Some have "seen the light" (not just the shadows) having
been in business.  I'm not sure they can compete in the
society of folks who haven't.

There are things involved in this argument that are too
self-evident to articulate in an efficient manner without
being patronizing and insulting.  I think Plato was right
and we will not be able to teach some that the shadows
they see are only a two-dimensional reflection of reality.
In their society we won't be able to frame arguments they
can accept since we attach little or no importance to
things they view as paramount but from a perspective based
upon experience are known to be inconsequential.  This is
a frustrating situation for both sides.

BTW, I have run a business (sold it).  I think I know where
Larry is coming from and I pretty much agree.  I don't know
how to communicate some of these things to people who don't
get it.  Plato's Allegory of the Cave certainly gives a
clear and  accepted, illustration that experience can't
always be explained to the inexperienced.  Sometimes an
ad-hominem "fallacy" in logic makes a valid point.
Hopefully we can all agree to disagree (and let this thread
die).

Craig Watson