[arch-general] SystemD poll

[Curtis Shimamoto]

On 08/26/12 at 07:55pm, Bigby James wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Felipe Contreras <
> felipe.contreras at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Bigby James <anoknusa at 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.
+1
-- 
Curtis Shimamoto
sugar.and.scruffy at gmail.com