Re: Upcoming loss of usability of Emacs source files and Emacs.

[Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>]

Hello, Stephen.

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 02:06:30AM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Richard Stallman writes:

>  >   > Actually, you are the one engaging in ad hominem attacks here, by
>  >   > making statements about me personally

>  > I am criticizing what you say.  That's not ad-hominem.

> No, you criticize *me*, writing:

>     What we get from you is ad-hominem attacks, over and over.

That is criticising what you've been writing.  And from my point of
view, Richard's criticism has some considerable merit.

>     I changed my mind in this discussion, but venom for those you
>     disagree with never changes.

> That is most definitely ad hominem, and indeed you know it to be
> untrue.

It is not an ad hominem, but strictly speaking, it is untrue.  But an
uncomfortable proportion of your posts do contain venom.

> You have had a number of experiences of perfectly courteous exchanges
> with me, as have many on emacs-devel, despite disagreement.

This is true.

>  > But you are spewing contempt at other people, calling them a
>  > "lobby".

> Only in their role of advocating that non-ASCII characters be
> prohibited in contexts where I believe they would be useful.

What you wrote, second time round, was "I don't respect the ASCII-capped
lobby".  That is disparaging, and an explicit expression of disrespect
for people whose views differ from your own.  "Spewing contempt at other
people" is a characterisation of this sentence, and other things you
have written, which has some merit.

> I myself am lobbying for experimentation with non-ASCII characters in
> Emacs syntax.  I see nothing "contemptuous" in that word, and nothing
> in several online dictionaries suggests that it is offensive.

Oh, come on, Stephen!  You know perfectly well that the offensiveness of
words has everything to do with their context, and I put it to you that
your phrase "the ASCII-capped lobby" was intended to be offensive, but
deniably so.  I, for one, find it offensive.

>  > > When did you change your mind in this discussion, and about what?

>  > Reread my messages and you will see.

> Why are you evading a simple question, and refusing to share
> information you certainly have?

I would guess because it would take Richard more time and effort than
it's worth.

> Rereading would be both tedious and unreliable.  Because your posts
> are very short, and with minimal quoting for context (and rarely any
> attribution of quotations), it can be very difficult to establish
> context for your words.

This is a fair criticism.

Now the whole point of this post, if you hadn't guessed, is to get you
to post in a more congenial manner, even when (especially when) you
disagree with whom you're writing to.  English is your native language,
and you're as skilled in its use as anybody here.  So please stop the ad
hominems, stop the venom, stop the disrespect and disparagement.  It
would make this list a more pleasant place.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).