<html>
<body>
I am dismayed by such a lack of response. <br><br>
(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).<br>
Anyway, reread your text, you had reached the Godwin point.<br><br>
Best!<br>
jfc<br><br>
At 01:17 17/04/2014, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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….”<br>
<br>
Greg Shatan<br>
<br>
<b>From:</b> JFC Morfin
[<a href="mailto:jefsey@jefsey.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:jefsey@jefsey.com</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, April 16, 2014 11:18 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Shatan, Gregory S.; 'Michel Gauthier'; Jay Daley;
ianatransition@icann.org; discuss@1net.org List<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [IANAtransition] Troll<br>
<br>
Gregory,<br><br>
You are obviously an honest person. Kudos.<br><br>
<br>
Even if you did not take Latin at school, <br>
1. you know about Goodwin's law. You have, therefore, lost the argument,
if there was one :-) !<br>
2. you can accept that there are two different things to name: to discuss
other people's texts or person. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
I am sorry, but I am French and I follow the French official definition
(very short) that you can find at
<a href="http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/ad%20hominem">
http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/ad%20hominem</a>. This is Schopenhauer's
definition, which is well known in "mail-combat".<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
<br>
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.<br><br>
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. <br><br>
There were three credible network technology applied
"cultures"; <br>
- one was private by Norm Hardy. It was user centric (Tymnet), <br>
- one was French Gov. research. As such it was open network centric by
Louis Pouzin, <br>
- one was French PTT projected plans. That Rémi Desprès has technically
led.<br><br>
The difference was in the globalism, equality, and neutrality priority
order. <br><br>
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.<br><br>
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. <br><br>
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.<br><br>
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).
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Ichbiah">
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Ichbiah</a>. We were all in the Paris
west-area.<br><br>
Legally, there was the need to compose with communications
monopolies.<br><br>
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). <br><br>
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!).<br><br>
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.<br><br>
<br>
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. <br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br>
<br>
(*) 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).<br><br>
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.<br><br>
<br>
My only targets are: <br><br>
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).<br><br>
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.<br><br>
They should also remember who is paying them.<br><br>
<a name="_GoBack"></a>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.<br>
<br>
jfc<br><br>
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). <br><br>
<br>
At 05:16 16/04/2014, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:<br><br>
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.)
<br><br>
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. <br><br>
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....<br><br>
Contrast the following:<br><br>
A. From Peter A. Angeles, Dictionary of Philosophy-- published by
Barnes and Noble, copyright 1981.<br><br>
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."
<br>
...<br>
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.<br><br>
B. Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy, XXXVIII:<br><br>
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.<br><br>
C. Listverse, 30 Latin Terms Explained:<br><br>
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$B!G(Bs proponent in an attempt to discredit that
argument.<br><br>
D. The American HeritageR Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition copyright c2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in
2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights
reserved.<br><br>
ad hom$B!l(Bi$B!&(Bnem$B!l(B adv.<br>
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. $B!&(B A modern coinage
patterned on ad hominem is ad feminam, as in "Its treatment of
Nabokov and its ad feminam attack on his wife Vera often border on
character assassination" (Simon Karlinsky). Though some would argue
that this neologism is unnecessary because the Latin word homo refers to
humans generically, rather than to the male sex, in some contexts ad
feminam has a more specific meaning than ad hominem, being used to
describe attacks on women as women or because they are women, as in
"Their recourse ... to ad feminam attacks evidences the chilly
climate for women's leadership on campus" (Donna M. Riley).<br><br>
E. Argumentation Theory after the New Rhetoric, Frans H. van
Eemeren (in l$B!G(Banalisi linguistica e letteraria xvii (2009)
1)<br><br>
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$B!G(Bs opinions concerning facts and values. Perelman and
Olbrechts-Tyteca place ad hominem on the same level as arguing ex
concessis. Arguing ad hominem amounts to utilizing what the
audience is prepared to concede (concedere).<br><br>
Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca also discuss the argumentation technique of
personally attacking the opposition. in order to avoid confusion,
they do not call this technique argumentum ad hominem but argumentum ad
personam. They do not reject a personal attack on the opposition. They do
warn, however, that in certain cases it is not so expedient because it
may have the reverse effect. Scientific audiences in particular,
have a low esteem of personal attacks. Then the attack on the opposition
backfires and the speaker$B!G(Bs (or writer$B!G(Bs) own standing,
prestige and credibility are reduced.<br><br>
F. Jefsey<br><br>
"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."
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/iucg/current/msg00610.html%A0">
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/iucg/current/msg00610.html </a>(Part
of a very long thread devoted to use/misuse/differing use of "ad
hominem")<br><br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Michel Gauthier
[<a href="mailto:mg@telepresse.com" eudora="autourl">
</a><a href="mailto:mg@telepresse.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:mg@telepresse.com</a>] <br>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 7:03 PM<br>
To: Shatan, Gregory S.; 'Jefsey'; Jay Daley;
<a href="mailto:ianatransition@icann.org">ianatransition@icann.org</a>;
<a href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a> List<br>
Subject: Re: [IANAtransition] Troll<br><br>
Greg,<br><br>
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: <br>
he would make the head-lines during Sao Paulo, and ten other ones would
replace him.<br><br>
M G<br><br>
<br>
At 23:53 15/04/2014, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:<br>
>"Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim
or <br>
>argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the
<br>
>author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."<br>
><br>
>I don't see anything ad hominem about Jay Daley's message, since it
<br>
>goes to the nature of the texts, not the writer. On the other
hand, <br>
>accusing someone of being a mouthpiece for another organization or
<br>
>"blundering", strikes me as ad hominem.<br>
><br>
>Greg Shatan<br>
><br>
>-----Original Message-----<br>
>From:
<a href="mailto:ianatransition-bounces@icann.org">
ianatransition-bounces@icann.org</a> <br>
>[<a href="mailto:ianatransition-bounces@icann.org" eudora="autourl">
</a><a href="mailto:ianatransition-bounces@icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:ianatransition-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Jefsey<br>
>Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 5:45 PM<br>
>To: Jay Daley;
<a href="mailto:ianatransition@icann.org">ianatransition@icann.org</a>;
<a href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a> List<br>
>Subject: Re: [IANAtransition] Troll<br>
><br>
>At last!<br>
><br>
>It took time! To know what would be the ICANN decision!<br>
>So it is delivered through an NZ ad-hominem. Good, now we know.<br>
><br>
>Sorry, I am quite buzzy right now....<br>
>I will come back on this later on.<br>
><br>
>jfc<br>
><br>
>PS. If this was not an ICANN decision but an individual blunder,
ICANN <br>
>people can let me know.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>At 22:51 15/04/2014, Jay Daley wrote:<br>
> >Are there others out there who would agree with me that this
list is <br>
> >being overwhelmed by messages from at least one troll? In
particular <br>
> >messages that make ludicrous claims, provide nonsensical
analysis, <br>
> >follow arbitrary directions and altogether are disruptive to the
<br>
> >conversation taking place?<br>
> >In my view this list is too important and already too time
consuming <br>
> >to allow any trolls to disrupt it in this way.<br>
> >If so then what if any process do we have for removing such a
troll?<br>
> >I note that the IETF, which is a long established
multi-stakeholder <br>
> >organisation has also had problems like this and has
occasionally had <br>
> >to ban people. Those bans were then subject to two levels
of appeal:<br>
> ><br>
>
><a href="https://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal.html" eudora="autourl">
</a><a href="https://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal.html" eudora="autourl">
https://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal.html</a><br>
> ><a href="https://www.iab.org/appeals/" eudora="autourl">
</a><a href="https://www.iab.org/appeals/" eudora="autourl">
https://www.iab.org/appeals/</a><br>
> ><br>
> >cheers<br>
> >Jay<br>
> ><br>
> >PS I have posted the same message to
<a href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a><br>
><br>
>_______________________________________________<br>
>ianatransition mailing list<br>
><a href="mailto:ianatransition@icann.org">ianatransition@icann.org</a>
<br>
><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition" eudora="autourl">
</a><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition" eudora="autourl">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>
* * *<br>
><br>
>This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential
and <br>
>may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you
<br>
>are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply
<br>
>e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not
<br>
>copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any
<br>
>other person. Thank you for your cooperation.<br>
><br>
>
* * *<br>
><br>
>To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform
<br>
>you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax
<br>
>advice contained in this communication (including any
attachments) is <br>
>not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the
purpose <br>
>of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or
applicable <br>
>state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or
recommending <br>
>to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein.<br>
> <br>
>Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00<br>
>_______________________________________________<br>
>ianatransition mailing list<br>
><a href="mailto:ianatransition@icann.org">ianatransition@icann.org</a>
<br>
><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition" eudora="autourl">
</a><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition" eudora="autourl">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition</a></blockquote></body>
</html>