On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Felipe Contreras < felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Bigby James <anoknusa@gmail.com> wrote:
Having watched this thread (and the "Beware" thread) for some time, I can say without equivocation that Felipe is not trying to "reason" with anyone. He clearly doesn't understand the concepts he himself refers to (rules of evidence, burden of proof, logical fallacies) and is attempting to sound more knowledgeable than he is.
He has failed to present evidence for his own case while ignoring that of his detractors
Once again, I don't have the burden of proof.
and seems to think that while his single anecdotal case counts for something, all others contradicting it are worthless
You cannot prove a negative, no matter how many negative accounts you put forward, on the other hand you only need one positive account to prove a positive. You can have one million people claiming that they have never seen Congenital Generalized Hypertrichosis Terminalis, but all you need is one to prove that it does exist.
This is very basic rationality.
But you can ignore my anecdotal cases, you still have the burden of proof.
He attacks the credibility of those clearly more competent than himself,
I haven't.
And for the record: An ad hominem argument is 100% fallacious only when it serves to distract others from the subject at hand by making irrelevant claims.
No, that's called a red herring.
It is not fallacious to, for example, point out that Jenny McArthy opposes vaccines while singing the praises of Botox on the grounds that the former are "poisons."
It's not fallacious to point that out, it's fallacious to conclude that because of this, his arguments against vaccines are invalid. His arguments stand or fall on their own.
it serves as proof that the target is not a reliable source of information.
A bum on the street might not be a reliable source of information, but he/she might still be saying the truth. Cops wouldn't take their word at face value (or almost anyone for that matter), but if a bum says there was a crime, cops could still investigate to make sure that's the case.
but demanding the devs comply with his wishes.
I am not demanding anything.
Since your whole mail is nothing but a bunch of ad hominem attacks, I'll simply stop replying to you.
Cheers.
-- Felipe Contreras
This is pathetic. A single instance of a bug in a piece of software may prove it's existence, but it goes nowhere with regard to proving that it matters one bit. Every piece of complex software has bugs; those bugs won't be found if the software isn't tested, and since you're not willing to participate in that process you've no right to harass those who have. The burden of proof always lies with the one postulating, and proving a negative isn't being requested. You don't have any idea what you're talking about, and your attempts to be pedantic don't cover up this fact; you don't even seem to realize your own failure. The reason you're not a reliable source of information is because you've thus far failed to share the knowledge you continually claim to have (knowledge about the faults and failings of software you don't even try to use). You speculate, you throw around FUD and you act like you know better than the people actively developing, maintaining and using the software, and outright state that you don't need to familiarize yourself with the very thing you're detracting. You're a troll, you've got nothing worthwhile to say and, sadly, you grossly overestimate the weight your own voice carries. You've accomplished nothing with this little "crusade" but pissing people off--something that you seem eminently talented at, judging by other exchanges you've had. If you can't learn not to speak like a fool, then it's best to just remain silent.