4 ms·
Oh no, let's not go this way again. It a conversation that has been had on-and-on, and it is always the same thing. To me this is a form of soap opera. We know
by vvpan 15y ago
Oh no, let's not go this way again. It a conversation that has been had on-and-on, and it is always the same thing. To me this is a form of soap opera. We know that this is a guy who chews skin that he just peeled off of his feet in front of an audience. So, obviously this is somebody who has to be taken for what he is, discussing his pros and cons is a waste of time.
- lutorm 15y agoWe know that this is a guy who ... <insert something that has absolutely nothing to do with software here> Nice ad hominem there, pretty much right from the textbook. Really, how does that affect the status of his statements about software?
- abdulhaq 15y agoThe world of software and its ecosystem/environment, like the rest of the world, is immensely complex and not susceptible to simple analysis that can be summarised in an essay. Therefore when we decide how much attention to pay to someones thoughts about the world of software it is useful to know if his opinions on other matters stack up, thereby casting light on how effective is his ability to analyze complex scenarios.
- krig 15y agoIt's not an ad hominem at all. It's not used as an argument against his statements about software. It was used as an example of his personality. How is a known fact about his personality not a valid example of his personality? The statement being made was that the personality of rms is well known, so to act all shocked and surprised when he exhibits that personality is ludicrous. You could even say that it was the opposite of an ad hominem: an appeal to look beyond the known idiosyncrasies of Stallman and focus on, well, his statements about software. That's not an ad hominem.