The EU and the software patent directive
***
*additional note*
01/08:
It seems the FFII has run in some trouble, very recently, of a legal/financial kind. More can be read at http://www.nutzwerk.de/media/releases/05_07_29_ffii.html (german). Mind that it's an article written by 'the other side', and probably pretty biased. Currently, the servers of the FFII seem to have been cut off, by order of a german court - which seems a bit like an overreaction for a small delay in payment of the fine by Holger (admin of the FFII), who has been overburdened these last weeks, and, admittendly, made a minor mistake in getting the fine payed on time. (Note that this claim of nutzwerk has been doubted by the FFII, who thinks it rather might be a DNS problem). He has offered his resignation, but it is unclear at the moment if it will be accepted. Human errors are understandable, after all, and Holger has, in general, done a great job in fighting against software-patents. One FFII-member commented:
10/08 : More on this latest development can be found at http://wiki.ffii.de/NutzwerkDns050729En.
***
As anyone even remotely interested in the subject will know by now, the 'Computer Implemented Invention directive (CIID) was defeated in the EU parliament. This means, basically, that nothing changes in this respect - and that after a battle-of-wills and hard-core lobbying for four years!
The funny thing is, BOTH sides (the pro- and con- lobbyists) consider this as a victory, both claiming it is a good thing it didn't pass through. While this may seem absurd and uncomprehensable, it is, in fact, only the former. Pro-CIID groups, like EICTA, can say little else, after having thrown millions of euro's for lawyers and lobbyists into it. Acknowledging defeat is 'not done'; it's in their general marketing strategy, after all: always portray things as if it were a succes, even if it isn't. So, now they claim 'software inventions remain under the patent protection they already have', which is true, but which amounts, in effect, to having no software patents, seen article 52 EPC of the rules to which the EPO has to hold itself too (but doesn't, leading to the mess we're in now).
The reality is, the directive was thrown out with such a never-seen-before huge majority, because BOTH sides decided to throw it out. The pro-patent MEPS because they were afraid that the amendments proposed by the anti-party (which would bring the CIID in compliance with article 52) could muster enough votes, and the anti-patent group because they weren't sure if they *could* muster enough votes (and even thereafter, if it wouldn't be watered down again by the 'conciliatory' process with the EC). So both sides played it safe, and thus the rejection vote was deemed the second best for both parties. All by all though, one can say this is more a victory for those that are against software patents then for the pro-directive (pro-directive meaning the directive without amandements, obviously). Why? For the simple reason that it were the pro-patent lobbyists that have tried to push this new directive through by all means for the last 4 years, and they failed. If they consider 'no CIID' to be a true succes, they could have saved the trouble and money, and just never initiated and lobbied for the CIID. When, after all those years of political struggling, you fail to get a directive passed you pushed for the past 4 years, it smells like hypocrisy to call the defeat of the CIID a succes by any stretch of the imagination.
As a libertarian (and european citizen at that), I'm also very much AGAINST software patents, and thus the CIID, and I have, in my modest way, campaigned against it too. This campaign could have been much bigger, if I had had a little bit more help from some groups, like the FFII. Because, while I don't want to whine, and I certainly respect the effort they have done to get the CIID thrown away, I must confess I'm rather dissapointed in the reaction I got from the FFII. More then once, I have offered an alliance that would have been mutual beneficial, but to no avail. For instance, I had made a manifesto about the CIID (see below) which I would have like to give to ALL the MEPS (in print, not in email). But seen the fact that that would be more then 700 times 15 pages, this would be too expensive for me alone. So I asked for help, financially or otherwise, to reach that goal. Mind you, I *did* offer my help too; since I don't live all that far away from Brussels, I offered to do their biddings for several days and help them out, as a counter-favour. To no avail, alas.
While they all were pretty enthousiastic in the beginning, things always sizzled out, once they noticed I was talking about mutual beneficial help, but *not* me becomming part of or being directly affiliated with the FFII. An attitude I can't really understand; one would imagine all help is welcome, and if it is mutual beneficial, then what is the problem? If they deemed me helping them out for a copple of days wasn't worth distributing my letters (which were anti-patents after all, and not bad, even if I say so myself), then they could have suggested something else for it. But they didn't. Which annoys me the most, frankly. If they didn't want to help, they should have just said so, and preferably why, or worked womething out we both found was to our (and the cause') benefit. But they didn't. I have send several emails (after their first positive responses), but then they never returned any emails anymore, even when I was open to all suggestions. Maybe they should look into this, in the future, because I don't think it's reasonable to just *not* respond; then even a clear 'no' is better then a wall of silence, IMHO. That said, I'm sure it's mostly a matter of being over-burdened, nothing more, and once they'll get a more adequate management of commuications during peak-moments, I'm confident the FFII will resolve this type of problems, and continue their good work even better then before. In the end, we can consider this outcome a succes for all swpat-opponents, because, when I and a lot of others first began contacting and lobbying MEPs in 2003 for the first reading, things looked pretty bleak.
Anyway, this is the 'manifesto' on the directive I made and send as a petition to the EU parliament (note: this manifesto and the appendixes A & B fall under the Creative Commons, attribution - and thus can be freely used and distributed).
*additional note*
01/08:
It seems the FFII has run in some trouble, very recently, of a legal/financial kind. More can be read at http://www.nutzwerk.de/media/releases/05_07_29_ffii.html (german). Mind that it's an article written by 'the other side', and probably pretty biased. Currently, the servers of the FFII seem to have been cut off, by order of a german court - which seems a bit like an overreaction for a small delay in payment of the fine by Holger (admin of the FFII), who has been overburdened these last weeks, and, admittendly, made a minor mistake in getting the fine payed on time. (Note that this claim of nutzwerk has been doubted by the FFII, who thinks it rather might be a DNS problem). He has offered his resignation, but it is unclear at the moment if it will be accepted. Human errors are understandable, after all, and Holger has, in general, done a great job in fighting against software-patents. One FFII-member commented:
"It seems, the Nutzwerk GmbH is trying already for some time to shut our mouths. And as Holger was over-burdened, a payment to a German court was delayed with ridiculous consequences (believe me - you don't want to live in Germany, I know these problems very well). So in my opinion, it's nothing serious, but the people being directly involved (Holger & Hartmut) are of course very stressed.
IMHO the FFII-core-team needs holidays - at least for me holidays are the only effective cure against burn-outs.
Finally, I want to emphasise that Holger did a really great job the last years. And what has happened was - as far as I understand it - only a minor mistake that could have happened to everyone of us."
10/08 : More on this latest development can be found at http://wiki.ffii.de/NutzwerkDns050729En.
***
As anyone even remotely interested in the subject will know by now, the 'Computer Implemented Invention directive (CIID) was defeated in the EU parliament. This means, basically, that nothing changes in this respect - and that after a battle-of-wills and hard-core lobbying for four years!
The funny thing is, BOTH sides (the pro- and con- lobbyists) consider this as a victory, both claiming it is a good thing it didn't pass through. While this may seem absurd and uncomprehensable, it is, in fact, only the former. Pro-CIID groups, like EICTA, can say little else, after having thrown millions of euro's for lawyers and lobbyists into it. Acknowledging defeat is 'not done'; it's in their general marketing strategy, after all: always portray things as if it were a succes, even if it isn't. So, now they claim 'software inventions remain under the patent protection they already have', which is true, but which amounts, in effect, to having no software patents, seen article 52 EPC of the rules to which the EPO has to hold itself too (but doesn't, leading to the mess we're in now).
The reality is, the directive was thrown out with such a never-seen-before huge majority, because BOTH sides decided to throw it out. The pro-patent MEPS because they were afraid that the amendments proposed by the anti-party (which would bring the CIID in compliance with article 52) could muster enough votes, and the anti-patent group because they weren't sure if they *could* muster enough votes (and even thereafter, if it wouldn't be watered down again by the 'conciliatory' process with the EC). So both sides played it safe, and thus the rejection vote was deemed the second best for both parties. All by all though, one can say this is more a victory for those that are against software patents then for the pro-directive (pro-directive meaning the directive without amandements, obviously). Why? For the simple reason that it were the pro-patent lobbyists that have tried to push this new directive through by all means for the last 4 years, and they failed. If they consider 'no CIID' to be a true succes, they could have saved the trouble and money, and just never initiated and lobbied for the CIID. When, after all those years of political struggling, you fail to get a directive passed you pushed for the past 4 years, it smells like hypocrisy to call the defeat of the CIID a succes by any stretch of the imagination.
As a libertarian (and european citizen at that), I'm also very much AGAINST software patents, and thus the CIID, and I have, in my modest way, campaigned against it too. This campaign could have been much bigger, if I had had a little bit more help from some groups, like the FFII. Because, while I don't want to whine, and I certainly respect the effort they have done to get the CIID thrown away, I must confess I'm rather dissapointed in the reaction I got from the FFII. More then once, I have offered an alliance that would have been mutual beneficial, but to no avail. For instance, I had made a manifesto about the CIID (see below) which I would have like to give to ALL the MEPS (in print, not in email). But seen the fact that that would be more then 700 times 15 pages, this would be too expensive for me alone. So I asked for help, financially or otherwise, to reach that goal. Mind you, I *did* offer my help too; since I don't live all that far away from Brussels, I offered to do their biddings for several days and help them out, as a counter-favour. To no avail, alas.
While they all were pretty enthousiastic in the beginning, things always sizzled out, once they noticed I was talking about mutual beneficial help, but *not* me becomming part of or being directly affiliated with the FFII. An attitude I can't really understand; one would imagine all help is welcome, and if it is mutual beneficial, then what is the problem? If they deemed me helping them out for a copple of days wasn't worth distributing my letters (which were anti-patents after all, and not bad, even if I say so myself), then they could have suggested something else for it. But they didn't. Which annoys me the most, frankly. If they didn't want to help, they should have just said so, and preferably why, or worked womething out we both found was to our (and the cause') benefit. But they didn't. I have send several emails (after their first positive responses), but then they never returned any emails anymore, even when I was open to all suggestions. Maybe they should look into this, in the future, because I don't think it's reasonable to just *not* respond; then even a clear 'no' is better then a wall of silence, IMHO. That said, I'm sure it's mostly a matter of being over-burdened, nothing more, and once they'll get a more adequate management of commuications during peak-moments, I'm confident the FFII will resolve this type of problems, and continue their good work even better then before. In the end, we can consider this outcome a succes for all swpat-opponents, because, when I and a lot of others first began contacting and lobbying MEPs in 2003 for the first reading, things looked pretty bleak.
Anyway, this is the 'manifesto' on the directive I made and send as a petition to the EU parliament (note: this manifesto and the appendixes A & B fall under the Creative Commons, attribution - and thus can be freely used and distributed).
posted by newsbyte | 2:15 PM
21 Comments:
So let me get this straight, you would only help them if they agreed to spam MEPs with your rant? And it is their fault for refusing? Wow, how terrible for you.
I read your "manifesto", and I am not surprised that they didn't want to distribute it to MEPs, its pretty crap.
But of course, you don't consider this possibility, rather its the FFII's fault for not recognising your genius. Sounds a lot like your relationship with another project that you like to complain about.
I gave the "mainfesto" a speed read and woke up with a case of "keyboard cheek". I always thought the computer beeping was quite loud when the keyboard buffer filed up, but obviously it's not loud enough.
Wow, how dare you criticise the FFII, who saved Europe from software patents. What the fu*k did you do (other than try to force the FFII to publish your dumb polemic)?
Well intentioned as your manifesto might be. I would certainly understand if ffii.org wouldn't want to sponsor printing many copies of a document they might not agree entirely with the wording of.
Your enthuiasm is amiable, but you have to realize that when campaign goes into crunch mode, ffii might have no ressources to spare for discussing with people who essentially agree with them, about the terms for assisting them with their projects.
Regards
Jan H. Hansen
Talkback
anonymous 1:
Wow! You mean you have concluded that by yourself? Just as I say here, maybe? ;-)
Ofcourse, the opinion whether it is crap or not is subjective, so I won't comment on your opinion on itself. Note, however, that most on the FFII I have corresponded with were rather positive about the article, and infact made the statement that it was much like what they were working on themselves. So at least your (obviously premature) conclusion of why they didn't want to distribute it, seems rather unsubstantiated.
Even so, my criticism - and it is a small one at that, because all in all they did a splendid job (btw, what have *you* done, actually?) is more about not getting a clear answer, whether it is yes OR no. I do understand that things can become a bit hectic, however, so I'm not like actually pissed off because of it. It's just something they should tend better to in the future, I think.
As for your claim I don't consider any other possibilities: I fear that is not true. However, it is true I'm not swayed by people counteracting my criticism merely by saying I'm a troll (or something similar), and never going into the actual criticism, nor giving any substantiated arguments for or against it.
In case of Freenet, Ian reacted the same way as you. In the case of toad (the main coder), he *did* give a point by point rebuttal of my criticism, and some points he raised as counterarguments were valid, I thought. That's how a discussion should progress, IMHO.
Everyone is free to have another opinion about that, of course.
anonymous 2:
Maybe you should concentrate on the 'conclusions' part, then. ;-)
The criticism of my manifesto is often that it is too long, especially for MEPs, to read. While maybe we underestimate the attention-span of a MEP, I realise their is some truth in that criticism, but I tried to remediate that by clearly putting a seperate 'conclusions' part in it, which is more palatable for those that don't have the time to read it completely.
anonymous3:
Strange reaction. Are you always so volatile? Let's make one thing clear: I very much appreciate what they have done, because in my opinion, we wouldn't be here where we are today (without the directive) without them. I fail to see how that exempts them from *any* criticism, however.
I dare to criticise them, because I feel I have a point, and no-one or nothing is above criticism, not even me, as you prove right now. It would be a sad thing, if the claim is made that, because a person or organistation that does good (or bad?) it is above any criticism. I do not subscribe to that idea.
And what did I do? Well, during the 4 year campaign, I've written (snailmail) and emailed letters to several MEPs, with some I had more thorough discussions and correspondence, I posted online banners on my sites as FFII and nosoftwarepatents promoted, I've made the manifesto, I send it in as an offcicial petition as well as under the 'correspondence with the citizens' of the EU institutions, and I offered help to the FFII for some days, including even going to Brussels, under certain conditions.
Now, and what did you do? ;-)
anonymous4:
I would understand that too, however, the manifesto is in my name, not under the name of the FFII - and a partly financial contribution would have been welcomed on itself. In fact, I specifically asked that, even if I was prepared to help them out for a few days, I shouldn't be regarded as 'employed' (even as a volunteer) by the FFII. I *do* think it's possible for two persons (or organisations) to come to a mutual beneficial agreement, without one having the upperhand or speaking 'in name of'.
I also concur with your last statement: as I have said, I understand things get hectic, sometimes. However, I started corresponding a long time before the actual vote, and nobody seemed to have trouble corresponding with me (or even phoning me up ;-), then. I'm not mad at the FFII or anything; such thing would be foolish. I just feel like an oportunity has been missed here, mostly by lack of communication, and maybe that's a point where the FFII should pay more attention to, (also in general), next time things get hectic. (I dunno: 'hiring' a new volunteer for managing the correspondence?).
The bottomline of the matter is, I have offered to help them, if they helped me, and I didn't cut of the communications. If they had said; yeah, but we're investing more in it, then you give help to us, I was more then prepared to listen to their suggestions. In any case, a clear yes or no would still have been better then nothing at all, so that is my first criticism. And I understand that at the end things were hectic, but maybe they should try to fix that, next time an important issue comes up.
None of my small criticisms seems over-the-top, nor (at least not completely) unvalid. So I'm a bit puzzled by some of the reactions I get.
Well, actually, I'm not. You always have those that can't reason or argument properly, but limit themselves to ad hominem attacks. ;-) Yours' was a welcome exeption.
I don't get it. You criticise them because they refused to distribute your manifesto? It isn't their job to help you, it is their job to prevent software patents in Europe.
If you really cared about this issue then you would shut up and follow their advice about what you can do, rather than insisting that they do it your way, and then griping about it when they don't.
If they decide that your manifesto is not the best way to do that, then rather than whining about it - why not accept the fact that they probably know better than you what is likely to influence MEPs?
And before you question what I have done for this issue (as you did for someone else in your response), you should know that not only did I meet about 7 MEPs in person, write so many letters and emails I have lost count, I also travelled to Brussels on two occasions to meet MEPs in person. I can also claim to have been part of changing at least 3 MEPs opinion on this issue from being in favour of software patents to being against them.
Now, remind me again what you have done, apart from moaning about the people doing the real work just because they don't do it your way?
"700 times 15 pages, this would be too expensive for me alone."
I really don't understand what it has to do with the FFII? If you have a personal opinion on world hunger do you start requesting funds from Oxfam to distribute hardcopy and then moan when they refuse?
Get over yourself!
Talkback2:
anonymous5:
Indeed, it seems you do not get it. My criticism handles in the first place the fact that they did not make a clear offer or rejection, one way or the other. This can be due to many issues,, as I have said earlier; for instance the fact that things might have become hectic, for a while.
Indeed, it's to prevent software patents. Therefor, it stands to reason that people with the same goal reunite their forces, exactly to prevent software patents. Nevertheless, even if mutual aid is not deemed beneficial, one could reach an agreement to a point where it *is* deemed beneficial by both parties. And even when not, it would be better to just say so.
As for your second paragraph: you do realise you are using a whole bunch of fallacies, I hope? Ranging from bifurcation, appeal to authority and what not. You begin it with something akin to the classic "anyone with a grain of intelligence (or "if you were intelligent"), you would not say that (shut up and...etc.), thereby indicating that, if someone disagrees with you (or in this case doesn't shut up) he's not intelligent (or doesn't care).
Ofcourse, this is a well-known fallacy, and since the premise is false, it can hardly count as a valid argument. I hereby refute your claim: I care, yet I do not shut up. ;-)
The other part is mainly a straw man: you would have me argument a position I never claimed myself in the first place. Since I never insisted that the FFII had to do their lobbying my way, the point is completely moot.
If you want to check up on fallacies, you are welcome to have a look here.
I'm pleased to see you have done so much work to prevent swpat. Not that this, on itself, matters all that much when giving critique; but I have asked the same question that others asked of me. Then again, I don't demand that a person shows his 'worth' for being able to 'show' with what right you criticise a(ny) person or organisation - including me. Rather, I think that right is inherent.
But it could be that the irony of my re-questioning was lost.
Your own last question is rethorical in nature: not only did I already described what I did (even if that would be necessary), you assertain it again yourself, with a straw man. I therefor doubt your sincerity in longing for an answer.
anonymous6:
It has nothing to do with the FFII; it has to do with the common goal of stopping software patents.
Your analogy seems a tad flawed: it is not for venting an opinion, it is for lobbying MEPs into getting the CIID thrown out or amended.
Therefor, if it's Oxfams goal to rid the world of hunger, and some other company would offer to help in that goal, as a gesture for the help Oxfam would provide, then I would say to your question: why not?
As long as it's mutual beneficial, there is no reason to reject it. In any case, Oxfam would without doubt answer that company with a no or yes, not with silence. (at least, when they are serious about their goal). Nevertheless, as I repeatedly said by now, there could be good reasons for the lack of response at the end, in which case I suggest they should pay a bit more attention to communication, the next time a new CIID-like proposal sees the daylight.
Heh, its amazing how good you are at ignoring or talking around what almost everyone is saying.
Now you are denying that the root of your complaint is that they didn't help you distribute your "manifesto", which is pretty dumb since any idiot can re-read your comments and see it clearly, here, look:
"So I asked for help, financially or otherwise, to reach that goal. Mind you, I *did* offer my help too; since I don't live all that far away from Brussels, I offered to do their biddings for several days and help them out, as a counter-favour. To no avail, alas."
So there it is, as clear as day, you made your help conditional on them distributing your manifesto to MEPs. Please don't deny something that is clear for all to see.
As for your mumbo jumbo comments about my rhetorical skills, I think most people will see these for the smokescreen they are.
Face facts, you refused to help them because they wouldn't spam MEPs with your manifesto. As someone else said - "Get over yourself!".
talkback3:
anonymous7 (probably the same as a former anonymous):
Ignoring fallacies, my dear anonymous, is paramount for any constructive discussion, or else one gets bogged down in absurd reasoning. If you would give an argument, or only even a hint of one, I might be swayed to give an argument back.
Alas, using fallacies and rethorical questions (and I hope you will not deny that they were exactly that, though you call my pointing this out 'mumbo jumbo'), you can not sincerely expect anyone to NOT ignore such meaningless statements.
Meanwhile, I would like to point out that you now use half-truths, to bolster your claims, which does not make for additional convincing arguments. As you rightfully point out, the proposed agreement was me helping them if they wished to help me. As you also point out: that's what I said myself.
So, I'm left wondering: what is your point?
Not only is your quotation very selective, as you conveniently forget all the rest I said, I fail to see how anyone can come from the given statements to your absurd conclusion.
Because, let's face it, your conclusion at the end comes right out of nowhere, considering what you just said above. It is surely a peculiar take on things, when someone offers a mutual beneficial deal, to which he doesn't get a clear answer, would be regarded as being the one refusing to help. What, you mean I had no right to make any even-handed proposals, and I OWED the FFII voluntary service? ;-)
I don't even think the FFII thought that themselves, so you're clearly rambling. I made an offer, to which I didn't get a clear reply (ultimately making it void in time); my criticism is about that, period. Your unsubstantiated conclusions and biased statements without regard to any facts or arguments borders on the funny.
Newsbyte, it is amusing that your responses get even more vague and rambling as time goes on.
Let me try to make it easy for you: Why should the FFII have spammed MEPs with your manifesto if, in their opinion, it wasn't a good idea?
And why, if you genuinely want to help fight software patents, which is your claim, would you only offer your help if they agreed to do something that they clearly didn't think would be beneficial for the campaign against software patents?
Let me offer an answer. The reason is that you arrogantly thought that you knew better than they did, even though it doesn't seem that you have any direct experience at lobbying MEPs.
It has been said before, and I will say it again - "Get over yourself!"
Talkback 4:
anonymous 8:
I doubt it is more amusing then the fact you keep asking the same rethorical questions, which I already explained in my first 2 posts - even before you posted, I believe.
I can't but conclude you're deliberate being obtuse and merily ignoring the arguments I already gave, and in fact, what my criticism is about.
Let me try to make it as easy for you as you tried it to make for me:
you are using a straw man-argument. I do not claim the FFII should do their lobbying my way; they can do their lobbying the way they see fit. (something you call 'spam', again, as a fallacy known as appeal to emotion). You might fool others with that tactic, but not me: not ONCE, as yet, did you come with anything else then unsubstantiated opinions and conclusions neither based on facts nor valid arguments.
It is funny to me, that you would resort to calling it 'spam', for instance, when the FFII itself has done similar things with their own letters. But, no doubt, you will find no trouble explaining why it's spam from me, but not from the FFII. ;-)
In fact, your whole bias is shown clearly through your over-use of emotional laden terminology, which has no basis whatsoever. Spam itself, is described as: "Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial nature, sent indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups; junk e-mail." No doubt, again, you will with ease explain how it can be spam, if it's not email, nor of a commercial nature. ;-)
As for your question why, if I want to help fight software patents, I don't offer help 'just like that'...well, I guess the question could be reversed, and you yourself have already partially answered that. I want to help fight swpats in my way, as the FFII wants to do it in their way. The question thus, was one of finding common grounds, so we could both benefit from eachothers' way. And it's just the 'clearly' you mention, which was lacking, which I find a point of critique. At some point, they actually spoke about printing my writings and distributing it among MEPs... facts you are totally ignorant about, but which does not keep you from making broad and unfounded conclusions.
Oh, but that's right: you call that 'offering answers'. ;-)
As for your x-time saying exactly the same things, such as 'get over yourself', may I direct you to this.
As for your x-time saying exactly the same things, such as 'get over yourself', may I direct you to this.
People publicly reaching consensus on the matter of your arrogance and egotism is not argumentum ad nauseam.
I have re-evaluated my opinion since I first introduced the "get over yourself" meme yesterday, you are either an accomplished troll or total kook.
Time to stop feeding this one folks.
talkback5:
unknown:
"People publicly reaching consensus..."
LOL. Well, to start, there would first have to be a 'public consensus' for that. But, you'll note that the only one actually signing his post, is also the only one who made a calm, rational post with argumentation, to which I responded in kind.
Secondly, seen the fact that almost all write under 'anonymous' it is inherently impossible to concude they are all different people. This might, or might not be the case.
And thirdly, even IF most of the responses here would indicate a large agreement on the matter, your tenet still doesn't hold. (This is called statistical special pleading as fallacy and also biased sample.)
Forthly, you make a false dilemma; for instance, I could be a troll AND a kook. Or neither.
Fiftly, even if I were a troll, it still wouldn't say anything about the validity of the arguments given. This is also a very common fallacy.
And lastly, with my former talkback I was addressing the other anonymous (provided you are not the same), which, on himself, repeated exactly the same things, in which case it clearly IS argumentum ad nauseam, and your claim of 'public agreement' is completely moot in regard to that conclusion.
As for your desire not to answer anymore: that is your perogative. As a libertarian, I wouldn't presume to order you to respond (or not). On a personal level, I would welcome thoughtful posts, such as that of Hansen, whome clearly seeks an open communication, not the venting of unsubstantiated claims and opiniated conclusions without argumentation. I confess I don't as much appreciate posts which largely contain fallacies and rethorical questions, for the mere fact that they do not lend themselves to have a sensible discussion.
Nevertheless, even those are expressions of thoughts (at least as I define it), and as a libertarian I'm all for free speech, and thus I won't delete them, nor am I forcing anyone to write or not (even if I could, which is hardly the case ;-).
More mindless rambling from Newsbyte. Here is a tip - lecturing people on logical fallacies doesn't make anyone think you are any smarter, it just makes it clear that you are trying to throw up a smokescreen to obscure the fact that almost everyone that has responded to your post (and there are at the very least two of us) is telling you you are wrong.
This is boring, you are either the worlds best troll or you are an arrogant fool. Either way, I am not wasting any more of my time on you.
talkback6:
anonymous9:
"Here is a tip - lecturing people on logical fallacies doesn't make anyone think you are any smarter..."
I actually agree with that one, at least partially. Alas, it also indicates you do not deny they ARE fallacies. In which case, I still think it is preferable to point them out, then just to let them stand unchallenged. It is true, this creates the impression that one is not answering the fallacies given, but that is just the whole point: one shouldn't, if it are fallacies.
I would say to you: give actual valid arguments, and I will respond in kind (such as with Hansen); give fallacies, and you reap what you sow. Which is, to point them out.
For instance, imagine I would actually accept your fallacy: there are at least two people, who have the same opinion, and therefor, it is a general 'public consensus'. Barring all other logical objections I made earlier - and ignoring the fact that I've already had other positive responses on the freenet-post, for instance - is this a reasonable conclusion? One would have to be completely daft to sincerely claim that two persons make out a public concensus. And, as I said, even if it were, it doesn't say anything about the validity of the arguments given.
Ah well, feel free to call that 'mindless ramblings'. ;-)
BTW, your last statement is again a false dilemma. Yeah, I know, I'm pointing it out, again, but that's because you use it, again. That would be akin to me telling you: either you're yourself a troll trying to provoke me in deleting your posts (or some other emotional response), or you are truelly delusional in thinking you are actually giving any argumentation for the absurdities you spout.
So, what do you choose? ;-)
As things are reversed, maybe you now will understand the actual meaning of using a false dilemma; the choice given is false and illusionary.
As for wasting your time: please feel free to do as you wish in that regard, as I said to the (presumably) other anonymous poster. In my libertarian view, you are free to continue your use of fallacies and unsubstantiated conclusions, which disregard any argumentation I already have given - only, do not expect me to actually succumb to such tactics, nor follow you in your fallacies.
So, indeed, if you do not want to give actual arguments or use logical rationale in regard to the main post, but rather stick with playing ad hominem (in the 'you are a troll/fool' range ;-), then maybe you should stop posting.
Or, because I don't want to use a false dilemma myself, maybe you can do both, or neither. It's all up to you, obviously.
This could go on for ever and ever.
For my part, I'll be replacing newsbyte with a small shell script for all my logical fallacy requirements.
talkback7
anonymous 10:
Indeed! It's actually very hard to have a conversation without falling for it and using said fallacies. And I'm no exeption to that.
Still, one should strive to avoid them, which is why I am pleased you at least seem to do the trouble of actually looking into the matter, now.
Reading your blog and I figured you'd be interested in advancing your life a bit, call us at 1-206-339-5106. No tests, books or exams, easiest way to get a Bachelors, Masters, MBA, Doctorate or Ph.D in almost any field.
Totally confidential, open 24 hours a day.
Hope to hear from you soon!
talkback 8
anonymous 11:
"Reading your blog..."[/snip]
Well, I can surely see YOUR life is pretty advanced! ;-)
I have read your blog, and I must say many of those other anonymous posters are whiners. How they can spout so much crap and make ad hominem attacks, just because you made some mild criticism about one minor aspect of the FFII, is beyond me. Their spiteful comments were certainly undeserved.
I welcome, applaud and am grateful for your involvement in fighting against the swpats. At least you did something, and you've proven it, instead of 'just talk' about it, like so many others.
Also, while a bit lengthy, I found your 'manifesto' a very interesting read. It was a well-thought-of, rational and comprehensive page with clear arguments. If some people can't muster the necessary concentration to read it completely, they should have just read the conclusion, IMHO. I especially appreciated the appendixes, full of references to scientific research about the effects of software-patents: I have been looking for such a thing for a long time!
Anyway: congrats with your fine blog, and keep up the good work!
Post a Comment
<< Home