[discuss] [IANAtransition] Troll

Thu Apr 17 00:35:59 UTC 2014

I am dismayed by such a lack of response.

(but interested as a muiltilinguist to discover the American Latin, 
and its difficulty you raise for a term to be there a synonym with itself).
Anyway, reread your text, you had reached the Godwin point.

Best!
jfc

At 01:17 17/04/2014, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:
>I don't know Goodwin's Law.  If you are referring to Godwin's Law, 
>we have not reached that point in discourse, yet, so I don't think it applies.
>
>I'm not sure how the claim that I have "lost the argument" follows 
>from your prior statements, or is true in any fashion.  In my 
>reading on "fallacies of argument," I don't believe I came upon 
>"unilateral declarations of victory" as one of the commonly cited 
>fallacies.  But it probably should be.
>
>Since you as a Frenchman follow the French "official definition" and 
>I as an American, find my (different) usage supported in the 
>American Heritage Dictionary among other places, I think that 
>underlines my prior point, which is that there are variant meanings, 
>and if one wants to say "personal attack," it may be better to just 
>say it, since "ad hominem" will be understood by some and not others 
>to be synonymous with "ad hominem."  While it would be amusing to 
>further explore "ad hominem," it would not be germane to this 
>list.  I'd rather try to define "multistakeholder
."
>
>Greg Shatan
>
>From: JFC Morfin [mailto:jefsey at jefsey.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 11:18 AM
>To: Shatan, Gregory S.; 'Michel Gauthier'; Jay Daley; 
>ianatransition at icann.org; discuss at 1net.org List
>Subject: RE: [IANAtransition] Troll
>
>Gregory,
>
>You are obviously an honest person. Kudos.
>
>
>Even if you did not take Latin at school,
>1. you know about Goodwin's law. You have, therefore, lost the 
>argument, if there was one :-) !
>2. you can accept that there are two different things to name: to 
>discuss other people's texts or person.
>
>The difficulty with English is the "common law" syndrome, where the 
>commonly used meaning precedes the "contracted" (in 
>dictionary/etymology) meaning. This is a big problem for the naming 
>space that we are discussing here as non english-native may think it 
>makes it unstable, and inadequate for computers direct entry. This 
>is the main reason for the distrust in some Anglo-Saxon global 
>taxonomies (where they easily confuse the name that one should put 
>on the record and the object one can sell). This is perhaps why ISO 
>uses English and French texts. Each language has their own 
>complementary pros and cons: let say that English is advantageous 
>for politically changing standards and French for norms.
>
>I am sorry, but I am French and I follow the French official 
>definition (very short) that you can find at 
><http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/ad%20hominem>http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/ad%20hominem. 
>This is Schopenhauer's definition, which is well known in "mail-combat".
>
>It is worse than Goodwin's Law, which only refers to texts. Ad 
>hominem is often the path to ad personam, which among honest, 
>intelligent, informed, independent people demonstrates an inability 
>to oppose the person's arguments, either by personal incapacity or 
>by logical impossibility.
>
>
>Now, my strategy is simple, it is to evidence the boringly hidden 
>evidences that harm people's interests and, therefore, my, and my 
>people's and friend's, interests.
>
>In 1977, I was interested in Associations and SoHo operational 
>networking and I wanted to build my own civil and professional 
>international networking capability, optimizing to my advantage what 
>was credibly proposed in the digital field.
>
>There were three credible network technology applied "cultures";
>- one was private by Norm Hardy. It was user centric (Tymnet),
>- one was French Gov. research. As such it was open network centric 
>by Louis Pouzin,
>- one was French PTT projected plans. That Rémi Desprès has technically led.
>
>The difference was in the globalism, equality, and neutrality priority order.
>
>The CCITT (ITU) project favored equality among the users. It was to 
>start from the global monopolistic bandwidth and add a data capacity 
>on an equal footing for everyone. This is what the French Gov. 
>favored with Transpac and Minitel.
>
>Vint Cerf's project (EIN 48) favored the extension of local to 
>global in a first time, to experiment first a global coverage for 
>the USG ARPA, and then to extend it to other technologies.
>
>I chose to follow the first one. Tymnet provided me (and everyone, 
>which is why we made 100% of the international packet switch 
>services start using it) with a neutral and open capacity that soon 
>proved to be consensually accepted as global and reasonably equal 
>(within the structural limits of the US law; no problem in France 
>once Transpac started). I created  further the Tymnet Extended 
>Services department, including our "Eurolab" with the "VGN for all" 
>project and even a both-ways international Minitel gateway, with US 
>and Canadian Minitel accesses.
>
>Obviously, politics interfered: the French Gov closed Louis Pouzin's 
>project at the end of 1978 that we had planned to interconnect, but 
>we connected ARPA to support Jean Ichbiah ADA work at CII-HB (which 
>produced the machines for the two French projects). 
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Ichbiah>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Ichbiah. 
>We were all in the Paris west-area.
>
>Legally, there was the need to compose with communications monopolies.
>
>1.  the FCC had to introduce neutrality vs. non-neutrality (basic 
>vs. value-added [now enhanced] services) to permit Telenet and 
>Tymnet to legally operate outside of the ATT Bell System monopoly. 
>In addition, the FCC gave Tymnet a license to document the US 
>naming, as Telenet only used digital addresses (IP and key CCITT 
>X.25 contributors with the French teams).
>
>2. we deployed network traffic and technology neutrality worldwide 
>with PTTs, where there was no legal problem. This made us hold mixed 
>public operators/private network projects (at that time, I attended 
>Group III meetings in Geneva in the State Department delegation!).
>
>However, international and technological network neutrality (we had 
>a large catalog of [cross-technology interfaces]) turned out to be 
>to the US mainstream industry disadvantage in permitting French, 
>Canadian, German, and US start-ups to compete with them. McDonnell 
>Douglas counter-strategically acquired Tymnet and strangled its 
>technological neutrality, while PTTs in several countries made 
>neutrality legal: the OSI platform was the law and it was to be 
>contractually guaranteed by operators.
>
>
>Architecturally things have not changed very much but they have 
>matured. The Internet developed based on Louis Pouzin's datagram and 
>network of networks catenet concepts, but it is still at its first 
>experimental stage. It has, therefore, not reached the transparent 
>neutrality capability. It is still unable to interconnect 
>non-I*technologies, hence all the Web, Apps, etc. patches that have 
>been made a "feature" by the RFC 6852 economic standardization 
>paradigm. It is still unable to support privacy, prevent spam, 
>insure security, etc. There is only one thing it does well: support 
>non-neutrality.
>
>The architectural reason why is that there is a lack of a border 
>between the network and the user areas: the concept of a smart 
>multi-technology and robust barbican (OSI presentation layer six) 
>has not been implemented yet (people are only allowed to build 
>firewalls, anti-viruses, spam-filters, use ISP nameservers, daily 
>lose their IP address). This has permitted the fostering of a 
>non-neutral intrusive (they call it inclusive) technical practice, 
>decentralized among main edge providers, i.e. true stakeholders 
>(NSA, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, etc.) which populate and 
>sponsor ISOC, Unicode, OpenStand, IEEE, W3C, etc.
>
>However, IDAN2008 and RFC 5895 have shown that the EIN 48 project 
>has nominally progressed. This is probably why the internet project 
>fared so well: it is simple and consistent, even if it suffers from 
>the Loc/ID BUG (in order to Be Unilaterally Global): IETF has 
>developed all of what is end to end (barbican to barbican) necessary 
>in order to build the Internet informed intelligent interfaced user 
>(IUser)'s Barbican at the fringe (*) and to relate from Barbican to 
>Barbican, as it was integrated in CCITT OSI and the core of the use 
>oriented Tymnet neutrality.
>
>(*)  Brian Carpenter will explain to you what it means. There is a 
>divergence on the edge/barbican location. Vint Cerf wanted it on the 
>network side, and I got it on the user-side. This is what is 
>referred to as the "presentation layer on the user side" (PLUS).
>
>This fully addresses my 1977 expectations, and what the WSIS 
>unanimously demanded in calling for a "Human Righted" people 
>centered information society. This is what the WCIT majority called 
>for in Dubai. This permits the protection of our humanity from the 
>"open gates" business greed of the US edge operators. This permits 
>our personal democratic choices, and protects fair competition from 
>MS collusion and economic invasion.
>
>
>My only targets are:
>
>1. to devise, develop, experiment, and deploy my digital relational 
>space (VGN) from my "smart barbican" (or IUI: intelligent use 
>interfaces) and organize with others the protected, free, and 
>innovative digital fringe to fringe relational ties (this is the InterPLUS).
>
>2. to test if the olicannopole wants to cooperate and dialog on an 
>equal footing basis or not. I have nothing against them (and do not 
>need them: they only use a very tiny portion of our technologically 
>available common spectrum): we only need to know if we can cooperate 
>or coexist in peace, or if they have decided that they cannot 
>survive us. In that case, we will only ignore them, as long as they 
>do not claim to represent and fight us. Anyway, time and 
>self-ordered criticality play for us.
>
>They should also remember who is paying them.
>
>Obviously, banning on the ground that I am a dissenting Stakeholder 
>or because I am not a Stakeholder who no right to free speech 
>because I speak the truth about the technology and users would make 
>an interesting last minute contribution to Sao Paulo.
>
>jfc
>
>PS. I suppose that if they ban me, they will quote this mail as 
>having been sent after collective warning and will attach it to the 
>decision. It will make at interesting reading for those wanting to 
>understand how well ICANN has prepared this debate framework (and 
>therefore its ability to frame far more complex IG cases than mine).
>
>
>At 05:16 16/04/2014, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:
>
>I was going to say that you were the confused one, but instead, I 
>did some research.  My conclusion is that the usage itself is 
>hopelessly confused.  (In other words, neither of us are confused per se.)
>
>A quick survey reveals that the use and meaning of the terms ad 
>personam and ad hominem seem to be so thoroughly confused and 
>jumbled, both in academic use and popular discourse, by so many 
>people, that it is probably better to stay away from them entirely, 
>and just say what one means without resort to Latin.
>
>  Indeed, it appears that there are so many whole essays and 
> scholarly articles -- even books -- written on the various meanings 
> of ad hominem, that it would be worthless for us to discuss it.  I 
> expect that if you brought a Classicist, a logician, a philosopher 
> and a student of rhetoric (Classic? "New"?) together to discuss the 
> meaning of ad hominem (and ad personam), they would probably come 
> to blows.  And I'm sure that each one would say he (or she) was 
> right and the others were wrong.  An argument among scholars of 
> argument about differing theories of argument would be rather amusing....
>
>Contrast the following:
>
>A.  From Peter A. Angeles, Dictionary of Philosophy-- published by 
>Barnes and Noble, copyright 1981.
>
>3. Fallacy of argumentum ad hominem (argument against the man) . The 
>Latin means "argument to the man." (a) Arguing against, or rejecting 
>a person's views by attacking or abusing his personality, character, 
>motives, intentions, qualifications, etc. as opposed to providing 
>evidence why the views are incorrect. Example: "What John said 
>should not be believed because he was a Nazi sympathizer."
>...
>6. Fallacy of argumentum ad personam (appeal to personal interest). 
>Arguing by appealing to the personal likes (preferences, prejudices, 
>predispositions, etc.) of others in order to have an argument accepted.
>
>B.  Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy, XXXVIII:
>
>A last trick is to become personal, insulting, rude, as soon as you 
>perceive that your opponent has the upper hand, and that you are 
>going to come off worst. It consists in passing from the subject of 
>dispute, as from a lost game, to the disputant himself, and in some 
>way attacking his person. It may be called the argumentum ad 
>personam, to distinguish it from the argumentum ad hominem, which 
>passes from the objective discussion of the subject pure and simple 
>to the statements or admissions which your opponent has made in regard to it.
>
>C.  Listverse, 30 Latin Terms Explained:
>
>Ad Hominem: An ad hominem argument consists of replying to an 
>argument or factual claim by attacking a characteristic or belief of 
>the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing 
>the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the 
>claim. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad 
>hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of 
>criticizing or personally attacking an argument$B!G(Bs proponent in 
>an attempt to discredit that argument.
>
>D.  The American HeritageR Dictionary of the English Language, 
>Fourth Edition copyright c2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated 
>in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
>
>ad hom$B!l(Bi$B!&(Bnem$B!l(B adv.
>Usage Note: As the principal meaning of the preposition ad suggests, 
>the homo of ad hominem was originally the person to whom an argument 
>was addressed, not its subject. The phrase denoted an argument 
>designed to appeal to the listener's emotions rather than to reason, 
>as in the sentence "The Republicans' evocation of pity for the small 
>farmer struggling to maintain his property is a purely ad hominem 
>argument for reducing inheritance taxes." This usage appears to be 
>waning; only 37 percent of the Usage Panel finds this sentence 
>acceptable. The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on 
>the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case: 
>Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and-true strategy 
>for people who have a case that is weak. Ninety percent of the Panel 
>finds this sentence acceptable. The expression now also has a looser 
>use in referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part 
>of an argument, as in "It isn't in the best interests of the nation 
>for the press to attack him in this personal, ad hominem way." This 
>use is acceptable to 65 percent of the Panel. $B!&(B Ad hominem has 
>also recently acquired a use as a noun denoting personal attacks, as 
>in "Notwithstanding all the ad hominem, Gingrich insists that he and 
>Panetta can work together" (Washington Post). This usage may raise 
>some eyebrows, though it appears to be gaining ground in 
>journalistic style. $B!&(B A modern coinage patterned on ad hominem 
>is ad feminam, as in "Its treatment of Nabokov and its ad feminam 
>attack on his wife Vera often border on character assassination" 
>(Simon Karlinsky). Though some would argue that this neologism is 
>unnecessary because the Latin word homo refers to humans 
>generically, rather than to the male sex, in some contexts ad 
>feminam has a more specific meaning than ad hominem, being used to 
>describe attacks on women as women or because they are women, as in 
>"Their recourse ... to ad feminam attacks evidences the chilly 
>climate for women's leadership on campus" (Donna M. Riley).
>
>E.  Argumentation Theory after the New Rhetoric, Frans H.  van 
>Eemeren (in l$B!G(Banalisi linguistica e letteraria xvii (2009) 1)
>
>In their definition of argumentum ad hominem, Perelman and 
>Olbrechts-Tyteca refer to Schopenhauer.  Unlike Schopenhauer, they 
>see nothing reprehensible in this form of argumentation. They even 
>argue that without ad hominem argumentation it would be impossible 
>to win others over to a particular standpoint.  In their view, ad 
>hominem does not denote a specific (and incorrect) argumentation 
>technique, but a general characteristic of all successful 
>argumentation.  According to the new rhetoric, arguing ad hominem 
>means starting from the audience$B!G(Bs opinions concerning facts 
>and values.  Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca place ad hominem on the 
>same level as arguing ex concessis.  Arguing ad hominem amounts to 
>utilizing what the audience is prepared to concede (concedere).
>
>Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca also discuss the argumentation 
>technique of personally attacking the opposition.  in order to avoid 
>confusion, they do not call this technique argumentum ad hominem but 
>argumentum ad personam. They do not reject a personal attack on the 
>opposition. They do warn, however, that in certain cases it is not 
>so expedient because it may have the reverse effect.  Scientific 
>audiences in particular, have a low esteem of personal attacks. Then 
>the attack on the opposition backfires and the speaker$B!G(Bs (or 
>writer$B!G(Bs) own standing, prestige and credibility are reduced.
>
>F. Jefsey
>
>"This is all the easier in English in that the confusion between the 
>two phrases [ad hominem and ad personam] already belongs to the 
>common 
>language." 
><http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/iucg/current/msg00610.html%A0>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/iucg/current/msg00610.html 
>(Part of a very long thread devoted to use/misuse/differing use of 
>"ad hominem")
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Michel Gauthier [ mailto:mg at telepresse.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 7:03 PM
>To: Shatan, Gregory S.; 'Jefsey'; Jay Daley; 
><mailto:ianatransition at icann.org>ianatransition at icann.org; 
><mailto:discuss at 1net.org>discuss at 1net.org List
>Subject: Re: [IANAtransition] Troll
>
>Greg,
>
>I am afraid you confuse ad hominem and ad personam. I think one 
>should be carefull at not cofnusing terms, because this would to 
>exactly do what Jefsey wants: to show the NTIA, the world and FLOSS 
>that the ICANN MS community can only ban competition and is unable 
>to cooperate with VGN Masters. This would legitimate their claim 
>that they must develop their own "fail secure plan for the net" in 
>case they are unwelcome.  They would love that you ban a network pioneer:
>he would make the head-lines during Sao Paulo, and ten other ones 
>would replace him.
>
>M G
>
>
>At 23:53 15/04/2014, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:
> >"Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or
> >argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the
> >author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."
> >
> >I don't see anything ad hominem about Jay Daley's message, since it
> >goes to the nature of the texts, not the writer.  On the other hand,
> >accusing someone of being a mouthpiece for another organization or
> >"blundering", strikes me as ad hominem.
> >
> >Greg Shatan
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: 
> <mailto:ianatransition-bounces at icann.org>ianatransition-bounces at icann.org
> >[ mailto:ianatransition-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jefsey
> >Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 5:45 PM
> >To: Jay Daley; 
> <mailto:ianatransition at icann.org>ianatransition at icann.org; 
> <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>discuss at 1net.org List
> >Subject: Re: [IANAtransition] Troll
> >
> >At last!
> >
> >It took time! To know what would be the ICANN decision!
> >So it is delivered through an NZ ad-hominem. Good, now we know.
> >
> >Sorry, I am quite buzzy right now....
> >I will come back on this later on.
> >
> >jfc
> >
> >PS. If this was not an ICANN decision but an individual blunder, ICANN
> >people can let me know.
> >
> >
> >
> >At 22:51 15/04/2014, Jay Daley wrote:
> > >Are there others out there who would agree with me that this list is
> > >being overwhelmed by messages from at least one troll?  In particular
> > >messages that make ludicrous claims, provide nonsensical analysis,
> > >follow arbitrary directions and altogether are disruptive to the
> > >conversation taking place?
> > >In my view this list is too important and already too time consuming
> > >to allow any trolls to disrupt it in this way.
> > >If so then what if any process do we have for removing such a troll?
> > >I note that the IETF, which is a long established multi-stakeholder
> > >organisation has also had problems like this and has occasionally had
> > >to ban people.  Those bans were then subject to two levels of appeal:
> > >
> > > https://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal.html
> > > https://www.iab.org/appeals/
> > >
> > >cheers
> > >Jay
> > >
> > >PS I have posted the same message to 
> <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>discuss at 1net.org
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >ianatransition mailing list
> ><mailto:ianatransition at icann.org>ianatransition at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition
> >
> >
> >
> >                                                                 * * *
> >
> >This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and
> >may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you
> >are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply
> >e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not
> >copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any
> >other person. Thank you for your cooperation.
> >
> >                                                                 * * *
> >
> >To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform
> >you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax
> >advice contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is
> >not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose
> >of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable
> >state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending
> >to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
> >
> >Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
> >_______________________________________________
> >ianatransition mailing list
> ><mailto:ianatransition at icann.org>ianatransition at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140417/ad3046ca/attachment.html>