- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 03:30:03 +0100
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Cc: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
-public-html +www-archive Sam Ruby wrote: > The third word is "strawman". It involves raising and addressing an > issue that bears only a superficial resemblance to the topic being > discussed. That is not the definition of a strawman. A strawman is an argument where one person misrepresents another's position so as to be easily refuted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > Maciej Stachowiak 2009-01-31 22.55: >> I don't think your description is in conflict with what I stated. >> The one part I disagree with is that any raised issue that at least three >> people agree is an issue must be flagged in Working Drafts. I do think >> it is often a good idea to mark especially controversial issues, or >> especially pervasive and clearly unresolved issues, but I think doing >> this as a matter of course may create a lot of work. I would say instead >> that we should exercise reasonable judgment about when a flag in the >> draft is warranted. > > Stating his disagreement. (Conditionally permitted by Sam.) > >> P.S. I know you asked people not to state their agreement on the >> list. But since your email was a reply to me, but since your email was a >> reply to me and since I think it is helpful to the group to see people >> coming to agreement, I chose to make an exception. > > Claiming to have stated his agreement. > > Sam: >> Keep a watch out for these three, and call them out when you see >> them. > > I see a "strawman". Sorry, that's not a strawman either. Maciej was just pointing that the he largely agreed with what Sam wrote, except for one small part. -- Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software http://lachy.id.au/ http://www.opera.com/
Received on Sunday, 1 February 2009 02:30:49 UTC