From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 16 Sep 2002 12:32:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 16 Sep 2002 12:32:20 -0400 Received: from dsl-213-023-040-192.arcor-ip.net ([213.23.40.192]:65415 "EHLO starship") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 16 Sep 2002 12:32:19 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Daniel Phillips To: Rusty Russell , Roman Zippel Subject: Understanding the Principles of Argumentation #3 Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 18:36:42 +0200 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2] Cc: Jamie Lokier , Alexander Viro , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20020916120022.22FFC2C12A@lists.samba.org> In-Reply-To: <20020916120022.22FFC2C12A@lists.samba.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org This is the third in my "Understanding the Principles of Argumentation" series. Rusty has obligingly provided us with a fine example of an "ad hominem attack": On Monday 16 September 2002 04:17, Rusty Russell wrote: > > Don't forget that the Unix way has traditionally been to use the > > simplest interface that will do the job; if you propose a fat > > interface you need to prove that the thin one cannot do the job. > > Gee, really? You're so clever! > > You patronising little shit, An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy where the arguer attacks the person, rather than the issue: http://home.mcn.net/~montanabw/fallacies.html -- Daniel