Miguel de Icaza, Microsoft MVP

[Samuel Thurston, III]

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Ari Torhamo <ari.torhamo at gmail.com> wrote:
> la, 2010-01-16 kello 17:17 -0600, Samuel Thurston, III kirjoitti:
>> On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Ari Torhamo <ari.torhamo at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > You seem to assume that if you in the beginning of your post announce
>> > that Conrad is a "Stallmanite", you get some kind of upper hand against
>> > him.
>>
>> You seem to think that simply claiming I'm being straw-mannish without
>> explaining how you come to this conclusion erodes my points in some
>> way.  The irony is unbearable.
>
> I seem to be missing something. I think I can safely assume that every
> one on this list agrees that based on Conrad's comments on this thread
> you had no reason to call him a "Stallmanite" (I feel silly even
> referring to that word).

Assuming things is not safe.  I'm in the thread and I don't agree.
Prior to your comment there were only 3 other contributors to the
thread counting Conrad and Yourself. I guess you could be as much as
75% correct.

>  It's obvious why you said that, so there's no
> need for you to explain anything.

Except again, I think you've taken me wrong, but you're assuming you
understand my motives and dismissing my explanation.

> I didn't criticize you of not
> explaining, I criticized you of saying the thing. Now, I would
> understand your comment on irony, if I would have called you names or
> made baseless accusations, but I haven't. I pointed out one trick that
> you have kept using through out this debate, namely the straw man
> argument. Your use of the trick is so obvious, that frankly, asking me
> to explain is an insult against yourself.

You have not pointed out the "trick," so much as simply made the
assertion that I am using it.  When asked to support this baseless
accusation, you have replied that it's obvious, and that I can't see
it is "insulting to [my]self."

That's plainly a ploy of its own sort.  Perhaps in the "every good
scotsman" vein.

> Again, I think I can safely
> assume that you are the only one on the list who needs an explanation.
>
> I'm sorry, but I'm going to stop replying to you now, because there
> doesn't seem to be anything good coming out of this discussion.

Very well.