Subject: Re: [mmox] mmox Digest, Vol 1, Issue 111

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 19:07:36 GMT

Dear Dan,

"Ad hominem" ("to the man") refers to people, not software programs or platforms. Criticism of software concepts or people's ideas isn't an "ad hominem" attack; labelling perjoratively isn't even an "ad hominem" attack. Even if this can somehow be construed as a "violation," there's been any number of such acts already on this list, that met with your silence. Ultimately *you're* the one the characterized OpenSim as "Leninist"; I tend to agree, given the absence of protections of IP and the rigid conceptions about how the Metaverse must be organized with collectivization. 

As for "logical fallicies," yes, there's always the risk of being kicked off the Latin boys' school debate team for violations of these sorts of arcane rhetoric rules. But, commonsense can prevail nevertheless and you can have a normal conversation urging technologists not to sneak ideological prescriptions into the protocols. As for bullying, your effort to invoke the boys' school rules would be characterized as just that. 

It's important not to weld worldviews into the code and into the interoperability in advance, whether Leninism, militarism, or any "ism". There should be authentic diversity and choice, and not a forced march to technocommunism. Virtual worlds need to be sustained by commerce, and commerce is sustained by property rights. Private property rights in general and specifically intellectual property rights are ok; they are not wrong, they enable people to make a living, including technology vendors. Copyleftism and collectivism are only one ideology for the Internet, and can't be the only one.

Since there are a number of "Dan Olivares" on the Internet, could you explain which one you are?

Prokofy Neva

____________________________________________________________
Click here to save cash and find low rates on auto loans.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTLaW0FYMjWhFUjLaV0gAMuavgDTXgbYSdN85xrhA3CrEcy6vcRaoQ/

---

From: Dan Olivares <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:44:03 -0500

logical fallicies are lapses in logic, they're not arcane rules in a
debate team.  If you will not argue logically, then your arguments are
discredited by anyone who considers logical discussion to be
important.   Additionally, you commonly refer to OpenSim as being
Lennist and communist.  In this way you are referring to OpenSim as if
it has beliefs and personifying it instead of simply being a group of
developers with many different beleifs that have no real association
to each other beyond 'making it better'.  Therefore, it is logical to
treat the arguments as Ad Hominem, or, perhaps an over generalization.

"there's been any number of such acts already on this list, that met
with your silence"
Just because I didn't argue one specific comment doesn't make any
other arguments wrong.  That is also a logical fallacy.

"As for bullying, your effort to invoke the boys' school rules would
be characterized as just that.", once again, a logical fallacy.  I'm
disputing the logic of what you're saying, it has nothing to do with
debate rules at all.  To the contrary, there's significant evidence on
this list and your blog that you are bullying the people on this list
under the guise of journalistic integrity.  Journalistic integrity
requires *both* sides be presented as well as impartiality.  You've
made it expressly clear that you are not impartial.  Therefore, it's
not journalistic integrity.  It's a personal blog and an opinion
column.  Additionally, you've made personal attacks in private e-mail
that you've posted to your blog. "(Ref: Two Words: Facebook TOS,
http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/second_thoughts/2009/02/mmox-moxie.html
).

"There should be authentic diversity and choice, and not a forced
march to technocommunism."  Once again, a false dilemma logical
fallacy( http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html
).   Business models will drive content protection, not an arbitrary
'forced' mandate that isn't applicable for worlds such as WoW that
don't have user created content.  (This was discussed in a previous
e-mail in this series)

"Virtual worlds need to be sustained by commerce, and commerce is
sustained by property rights."
In the Linden Lab user created content model.  It is applicable in
many cases but not, for example WoW (no user created content).

"Private property rights in general and specifically intellectual
property rights are ok; they are not wrong, they enable people to make
a living, including technology vendors."
Agreed, there is nothing wrong with property rights in general, and,
I'm arguing that business models enable people to make a living.  If
those business models include IP protection, then the content will be
protected.

" Copyleftism and collectivism are only one ideology for the Internet,
and can't be the only one."
Agreed, I didn't say that there was only one, just that they should
not be mandated because they do not apply everywhere.   I'm arguing
the use of the keyword MUST instead of MAY.

"Since there are a number of "Dan Olivares" on the Internet, could you
explain which one you are?"
The only reason for this question is to try to argue 'me' instead of
my ideas, try to discredit me based on my credentials instead of my
arguments, or otherwise find a way to publically and vindictively
attack me or my ability to work.  Therefore, I once again, urge you to
debate the idea, and not the person.

Best Regards

Dan Olivares

On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 2:07 PM, [email-masked]
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTLaW0ItE7NIpRQMxMyaPEML2nrpxe8l8KdAGHmPnDwHSR7izk4R8U/
>

---

From: Kajikawa Jeremy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 01:37:05 +0000

So *you* are this "Prokofy Neva" person Ive heard about...

I always wondered if the reputation was deserved, ...that question is
now answered
  for me at least.

and I would expect you to put up equally the same as others on this list
when asked
  for details...

Im happy to state full details about myself on this list and invite
anyone to refute me,
  but that is also taking conversations out of scope...

My understanding of this list is to knock out a VW *agnostic* protocol
with means
 to support *multiple* ideologies without exclusion and in an extensible
manner.

do you disagree?

Jeremy Kajikawa
  AKA Belxjander Serechai
  AKA Freija Yoshikawa

On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 19:07 +0000, [email-masked] wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> mmox mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox

---

From: Dan Olivares <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 21:12:02 -0500

Can we avoid personal attacks here Kajikawa?   Lets please make our
best efforts to discuss the idea and not the person.  The fact that
you're talking to Prokofy Neva and the reputation of the avatar really
has no bearing on the points she's making.

Best Regards

Dan