Modifying Class Object

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* Stephen Hansen:
> 
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Alf P. Steinbach <alfps at start.no 
> <mailto:alfps at start.no>> wrote:
> [abundant snips which do not accurately represent who said what where 
> due to my own laziness]
> 
>                     Not sure, but perhaps it's possible to mail directly
>                     to gmane?
> 
>                 Is there *any* problem you don't have a fatuous answer for?
> 
>             I thought the answer could help.
> 
>             You thought you cold do a bit of ad hominem attack.
> 
>             That's the difference between us.
> 
>         Well, the way I see it, you assumed you knew better than
>         Stephen, and
>         insisted on proposing a solution to a problem that he clearly
>         stated he
>         had no interest in.
> 
> 
>     You're going into motivations, that it seems to me that you're
>     projecting, saying that any helpful suggestion mean that one thinks
>     one knows better and implies a desire to demonstrate imagined
>     superiority.
> 
>     You're trying to portray a helping hand as a negative personal
>     characteristic of the helper.
> 
>     "the only reason that guy tries to help you is because he wishes to
>     show how superior he (thinks he) is".
> 
>     That's your style in a fair number of postings, and now here:
> 
>      * ad hominem attack,
> 
> 
> I am, frankly, tired of this.
> 
> Please stop this overly obsessive sensitivity towards what you think are 
> "ad hominem" attacks. Just drop it. Its worthless. It degrades you. Your 
> arguments are frequently nothing more then, "I define the world this way 
> and you do not disagree so I declare your argument invalid".

I'm happy that even though that may (with some low probability) be your actual 
opinion, it's incorrect.


> You've 
> dismissed at least one of my arguments with a simple hand-waving of, 
> "That's invalid, cuz."

That is not a quote of me. It is a lie.


> The thing is, there was no basis for 'cuz' beyond 
> "In my own head this is what I think, this is how I'm defining words"

That's also a lie, and it's not a quote of me.

And just to be clear, as anyone can see by looking up-thread, generally, 
contrary to your claims, I give references for whatever that I suspect might be 
genuinely misunderstood.

And so I've done in (nearly) every article in the original thread, especially 
for the terms, and still people have posted articles apparently mis-interpreting 
those terms in very non-sensible ways  --  one gets tired of that, yes.


> The response of others to such arguments has been, "Do you /really/ need 
> to be so absolutely right in everything?!" which is said in frustration, 
> irritation and with deep sighing. 

It's true that that kind of insinuative arguments have been used in this group, yes.

It goes to alleged motives and alleged history instead of the technical, that 
is, it is a purely personal attack.

So, ironically, you're here citing one kind of hominem attack  --  not exactly 
clever when you're arguing that such does not occur.


> And then begins the loud declarations of ad hominem attacks. 
> 
> Its not productive. It doesn't help your case or arguments.
> 
> Its tired.
> 
> It doesn't make your case. It doesn't make anyone but you look bad. 
> Every time you go on about, "YOU ARE AD HOMINEM'N ME!", you just make 
> yourself look worse.
> 
> Yeah. People can be snarky in a community. Maybe... MAYBE... Steve 
> Holden is periodically a little snarky at you. It is not without reason. 
> And your declarations of his ad hominem attacks against you comes off as 
> nothing but base /whining/.
> 
> Just drop it. 
> 
> Its boring.
> 
> Also...
> 
>         I'm not quite sure, given that, what the point of the advice was.
> 
> 
>     There are many people who read just the Usenet group, e.g. via
>     Google groups.
> 
>     When you say you don't understand the point of the advice, you're
>     saying that
> 
>      * those people don't matter, and that
> 
>      * it doesn't matter whether they can read Stephen Hansen's articles.
> 
>     That's
> 
>      * slighting Stephen Hansen, and
> 
>      * showing off an extreme ego-centric view of the world,
> 
> 
> Please do NOT presume to take up my defense on ANY level.
> 
> I can handle myself, thank you. 

I do offer unsolicited help now and then, as I gave you and for which Steve 
Holden decided that a bit of personal attack would be suitable.

But my help was just as much in order to help others (who can't read your 
non-propagated articles) as in order to help you personally. That's the spirit 
of Usenet in many other groups. One just helps out, and often the reaction is a 
"thank you" instead of an ad hominem attack (as with Steve Holden) or, as in 
your case, faked quotes and general lies, which is border-line ad hominem.

Anyway, please stop post faked quotes and general lies, as you do above.


Cheers & hth.,

- Alf