responding to ad hominem person attacks
Peter William Lount
peter at smalltalk.org
Fri Sep 14 19:56:15 UTC 2007
Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
>>>>>> "Peter" == Peter William Lount <peter at smalltalk.org> writes:
>>>>>>
>
> Peter> Nonsense, it's valid fair use. Learn copyright law.
>
> Nonsense, there's caselaw that says that letters sent from person A to B
> were owned by A, because B wanted to publish them when A became famous.
>
> I forget the specifics, but it's been decided.
>
> That is why I said *arguable*. I don't think anyone's argued the email case,
> but the physical mail case has precedent.
>
> Don't wave "fair use" so broadly. It really isn't that broad.
>
>
Note: the subject heading was "Re: Fear and loathing of the
"perification" of Smalltalk".
Hi,
Fair use applies in this situation.
There are also other laws other than copyright to consider. In British
Columbia, where I am located, a party to a conversation may make it
public if it's in defense of their person as my posting clearly was. End
of story.
Also I didn't retaliate with any personal attack. I simply stated the
facts of what was said and asked the person to stop their attacks, which
seems to have occurred as the subsequent email-posting exchange shows.
Furthermore, out of a desire to have positive conversions subsequently
follow, I provided suggestions of how to ask appropriate questions
rather than initiate ad hominem attacks.
I suppose that you support ad hominem attacks upon the person even if
they are sent privately to attempt to influence, "bully" or "inflame"
someone's behavior in a negative way with false accusations?
How would you have handled it in a way that would positively influence
the person's initiating the ad hominem person attack?
All the best,
Peter William Lount
peter at smalltalk.org
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|