Re: Java 5 End Of Life

Lew wrote:
Gerald Murdock wrote:
for us to disagree amicably, *without* one of us having to publicly accuse the other one of, if not outright lying, then apparently some form of exaggeration or dubious judgment or suchlike?

Lew wrote:
Here we go again!

Bill McCleary wrote:
Here what goes again?

This "Gerald Murdock" is another sock puppet for a noted troll.

I am not.

(One more direct accusation like that and you are outta here, as per what I said in my other post.)

I see someone being rude and someone getting annoyed about it. A quick

You saw "Gerald" getting rude and annoyed at someone for bringing up a technical point.

I did not get rude at anyone for bringing up a technical point. I called someone, fairly politely, on taking an unwarranted condescending tone, and rashly accusing me of outright error (at a minimum) regarding a matter where there was certainly enough leeway in the facts for my position not to be considered such. Indeed, the facts favored my side, not Peter's.

Peter did not get rude.

Yes, he did. Where I come from, responding to someone's reasoned disagreement with "You are making unwarranted assumptions" or similar utterances is rude. That's not "I disagree"; that's "You're wrong", or worse, "You idiot". In fact, unless there is a very strong factual basis for concluding that the other guy is in error, it is arrogance and a complete refusal to acknowledge that the other person's opinion is every bit as valid as yours is. Even if there is such a strong factual basis, it's still rude to phrase such a thing so bluntly, and in front of other people.

In fact, I was told that it is generally a poor idea to start slinging what is appropriately called "the accusative" by grammarians around: saying "You this" and "You that" in a disagreement. It inevitably makes things personally. It's far better to use "I": "I disagree"; "I think X, because Y"; and so forth; or to be neutral: "The evidence indicates that Z."

He spoke to the issues

I don't call including a bunch of statements of the form "You're making unwarranted assumptions" that could have been omitted and that are not, in and of themselves, about "the issues", "speaking to the issues". I call it flaming, albeit on a rather mild level.

and so-called "Gerald Murdock" (a.k.a., "Twisted" or "Jerry Gerrone", among many, many other aliases)

I won't dignify this with a further response, except to say that any further posts from you containing such nonsense will land you promptly in my killfile, as will any containing namecalling or accusations (directed at me OR at other people).

flew off the handle and thought he was being called a liar.

I did neither. My post shows more restraint and contains less personal criticism than its provocation did, and I said I thought Peter was insinuating that I was being silly "or worse" and "perhaps" dishonest. I made no affirmative assertion that he definitely did intend to impute dishonesty to me; I had insufficient evidence to do so in good conscience. At this point, I suspect had our positions been reversed Peter would have shown no such restraint, though; as he showed little in lashing out with personal criticisms when someone dared to continue to disagree with him even after he'd made his position known.

If anything, I care even less for the sort of intellectual bullying exhibited by Peter (and, it seems, you) than I do for the humdrum physical sort.

check of the post histories shows little for Murdock and lots of

Of course, because "Gerald Murdock" is only his latest alias.

examples of Duniho being snappy with others and generally acting like an infallible know-it-all -- if he doesn't agree with someone, that someone is wrong or worse, stupid. (I don't think he has gone so far as to call people liars much though, based on skimming a bunch of his past posts.)

He didn't call "Gerald Murdock" stupid at all. He expressed disagreement, that is all

I don't call "You make incorrect assumptions", "False premises", "Only one of the adjectives you used actually applies", and so forth "expressing disagreement". I call them "asserting that your opinion is the only one that counts", not merely "expressing disagreement", unless the issue is one where the facts are pretty conclusive. Which, in the instance in question, was not the case.

It's also personally attacking the other debater, always a dishonorable tactic; "You X" where X is something negative is a personal attack more or less by definition (even if it's true, and there was insufficient factual support for Peter's personal attacks to call them "true").

and did so based on his experience and on reason that he presented.

If he had actually only "expressed disagreement based on his experience and reason that he presented" we would not be having this discussion. But that is not all he did. He also said things approximating "You make incorrect assumptions", "False premises", and "Only one of the adjectives you used actually applies" which are statements about his opponent, not statements about Java on MacOS.

He resorted to the discredited "ad hominem" form of argumentation, and I called him on it, pure and simple.

Why are you defending him, seeing as the facts are not on your side here?

He called "Gerald Murdock" wrong because, well, "Gerald Murdock" was
wrong, that time.

No, I was not. As I pointed out in a previous post, there are experimentally-derived numbers in support of one of my statements that Peter attacked, and there are court documents in support of another. About the third one Peter was just plain ignorant; his assertion that computer sales are not driven by the network effects of application availability are ludicrous on their face, given that the *sole* use of a personal computer is to use applications. Historical evidence bears out the importance of said market effects.

Regarding those court documents, by the way:

Twelve Americans that got jury duty agree with me about Microsoft's past relationship with Java; the same twelve might have instead been asked to rule on a death-penalty murder trial, at least in principle. If we can't trust them to have probably gotten it right, we have much bigger problems than getting Java to work properly on MacOS. :)

Happens all the time on Usenet. In fact, much worse happens all the time on Usenet. This group is more civil than most, and guys like Duniho are much more civil than the worst I've seen in some other places,

Seeing as how Pete didn't insult anyone

He did. I felt insulted when I read him asserting (publicly! And erroneously!) that I "make incorrect assumptions" and that many things that I say don't "apply". The first is basically namecalling and the second is belittling on its face, so it's hardly shocking that I did. Regardless of *why* I did, though, the mere *fact* that I did blows your assertion that "Pete" "didn't insult anyone" out of the water and halfway to Timbuktu.

get at all personal

Saying "You X", especially when X is an unflattering assertion, is the very *definition* of "getting all personal".

or offer any derogatory comment about "Gerald Murdock" in any way

Claiming that "Gerald Murdock"'s words do not "apply" and so forth certainly seems derogatory enough.

(Did you even *read* the post at issue?)

I have to agree with you that he is much more civil than the worst.

Certainly he now appears to be more civil than you.

(And yes, that's personal. And yes, I think you've earned it.)

So if you think this minor case of ruffled feathers, if it even rises to that level, is enough to be moaning and kvetching and plonking one of the participants, you have some serious over-sensitivity issues, Lew. :)

If you say so. I just know from years of experience how useless it is to argue with "Gerald Murdock".

That's ridiculous on its face. I think this is the first time we've argued, and it started hours, not years ago.

I begin to wonder now whether I might be arguing not merely with a tosser even more full of himself than Peter apparently is, but perhaps with a madman.

I'd recommend you expose yourself to one of the more virulent alt groups -- say, alt.religion.scientology -- for a while to gain some perspective, except I'm afraid you'd read about three posts there and then lapse into a catatonic state, plonk the whole newsgroup thus rendering my recommended therapy unworkable, or perhaps moan like the above and then, from the responses, learn the *true* nature of the Dark Side when not yet ready to face it you are, because incomplete is your training.

What a tool.

Him and hundreds of millions of other people, if by "tool" you mean "Star Wars fan".

(I'm one of them.)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Universality as warrant for relative truth value
    ... Sometimes we must be innovative with language, ... When the disagreement is over concepts, rather than facts (as is ... often the case), communication can be difficult. ...
    (sci.philosophy.meta)
  • Re: "Cancer is a fungus" --or fraud?
    ... Peter checks out the facts and judges them according to certain ... no. Peter Moran noticed the x-rays on Simoncini's website are not ... He doesn't have any evidence though, but you don't care about that. ... everybody knows when you cut a tumour the cancer ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Hands Up
    ... Who here approves of the sneering, intellectual thuggery of Peter ... I write this in defense of the stand for civility Eric Stevens made ... Our only indications of the truth are the facts not ... do you approve of Peter's behavior? ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Why hillary cant win
    ... facts and cites, well, thats their problem... ... I said that you usually attempt to reason with people first. ... have difficulties handling disagreement. ... Calling names never changes facts. ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: My excuse to Peter van der Goes
    ... > I hopefully am right (almost sure because some facts) and is somebody ... > faking your name. ... while peter normally uses cox.net. ... because you post with the 'MVP' title, it gives us all a bad name. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.adonet)