Manufacturers on the web: a double edged sword?

[Mescalito]

I am sorry that is fairy ding dong land. It is the easiest system possible with the least rules, least moderation, least conflict, most open discussion possible. It is happening at Subjectivist - very occassionally one of the idiots who wants to make trouble arrives, he makes trouble with an ad hominem post, it is removed and any future ones or fire backs are removed. The discussion carries on around it as though it never happened and they soon give up and piss off, you don't even need to ban them. NO discussion is ever stopped, or moderated, as no one attacks a person, only an IDEA. UNLESS the person is made the subject of the thread and then they are fair game as long as the information is honest and the truth backed up with facts and links.

Compare this with Mescalino who turns every thread I post on into a discussion of me in order to create conflict. On Subjectivist every single post would be removed until he discussed the subject or gave up, very simple, very effective. In fact I challenge him to come to Subjectivist and try his tricks, he wont be banned, he just will not have his posts lasting very long unless he discusses the subject. He can even start a thread such as Richard Dunn is a fairy loving twonk - discuss, and we will see who comes out as the idiot.

I am actually a member of The Subjectivist. It is not my cup of tea, I strongly disagree with it's philosophy & I will not be logging on again.

Chris

 

[Dev]

According to trading standards that is illegal if you purchase on line, and they say test cases will be brought to court to stop the practice. There have been articles and news clips on tele about seriously large companies that are not applying the law correctly - growing pains IMO.

This is my understanding too. The following links might be of interest:-

http://www.out-law.com/page-430

http://www.oft.gov.uk/about-the-oft/legal-powers/legal/distance-selling-regulations/

 

[Fnuckle]

Very simple, if it is not the subject of the thread and is addressed to one of the posters on the thread then it is ad hominem.

Look, I am really sorry to keep bringing this up, but the perversion and devaluation of formal terms like this is one of my pet hates.

Taking the argument to the man (argumentum ad hominem) is not simply addressing an individual, even if that address is insulting or offensive. It is a logical fallacy, and as such it has a very specific structure, that has been in place since Aristotle.

The form is an attempt to undermine the force of an premise by maligning the person making that premise. It is not coextensive with insult, because mere insult does not necessarily include an argument against a premise. An insult only turns to argumentum ad hominem fallacy if personal attacks are themselves used as arguments against a premise.

Philosophers have unsuccessfully tried to defend the formal nature of the term 'begging the question' (it means assuming the proof of something that requires additional proof - 'Frank is overweight because he weighs too much' - rather than the journalistic cliché of taking it to mean it 'invites the question'), so they are left with returning this logical fallacy to its Latin form - petitio principi - in order to formally define the fallacious form. By perverting the formal nature of argumentum ad hominem and calling your perversion of the same ad hominem, your actions prevent even that.

So please, do not simply make up your own definition of argumentum ad hominem, because in so doing you undermine a very formal definition of a logical fallacy. It's as wrong as calling FETs and bipolar output devices 'the same thing'. I understand that 'please stop with the ad hominems' sounds more intelligent that 'please stop with the insults', but it really does not when your own definition is at odds with 2,500 years of logical thought.

 

[Mescalito]

My main problem with buying direct from an internet-only manufacturer is the same one I have with using shareware. With few exceptions, most of the internet-only manufacturers tend to be small and in some cases little more than craft based cottage industry outfits.

In other words, like a piece of shareware, there is always the potential for the company to suddenly disappear, leaving you with a totally unsupported product. Indeed, some of these companies have a history of suddenly dropping off the radar.

I know that medium to big companies can and do stop supporting their kit, but for a product from a real manufacturer, the chances are that there is enough of their kit out there for it to be a simple matter to find a third party repair company.

Regards,

Chris

 

[Richard Dunn]

Look, I am really sorry to keep bringing this up, but the perversion and devaluation of formal terms like this is one of my pet hates.

Taking the argument to the man (argumentum ad hominem) is not simply addressing an individual, even if that address is insulting or offensive. It is a logical fallacy, and as such it has a very specific structure, that has been in place since Aristotle.

The form is an attempt to undermine the force of an premise by maligning the person making that premise. It is not coextensive with insult, because mere insult does not necessarily include an argument against a premise. An insult only turns to argumentum ad hominem fallacy if personal attacks are themselves used as arguments against a premise.

Philosophers have unsuccessfully tried to defend the formal nature of the term 'begging the question' (it means assuming the proof of something that requires additional proof - 'Frank is overweight because he weighs too much' - rather than the journalistic cliché of taking it to mean it 'invites the question'), so they are left with returning this logical fallacy to its Latin form - petitio principi - in order to formally define the fallacious form. By perverting the formal nature of argumentum ad hominem and calling your perversion of the same ad hominem, your actions prevent even that.

So please, do not simply make up your own definition of argumentum ad hominem, because in so doing you undermine a very formal definition of a logical fallacy. It's as wrong as calling FETs and bipolar output devices 'the same thing'. I understand that 'please stop with the ad hominems' sounds more intelligent that 'please stop with the insults', but it really does not when your own definition is at odds with 2,500 years of logical thought.

I have put a link to this so many times it is silly, so if you wont read the link then here is the text.

Definition: Ad hominem is a Latin term meaning "to the man". It is short for "argumentum ad hominem" which refers to an argument against a man. An argument that is ad hominem is one that has deviated from the claims being made and has instead focused on the person making the claims.

This is *exactly* what I am saying. You keep saying I am refering to insults as ad hominem, I am not. I am saying that *on forums* ad hominem always leads to conflict and insults. Does it sink in this time

 

[Coda II]

According to trading standards that is illegal if you purchase on line, and they say test cases will be brought to court to stop the practice. There have been articles and news clips on tele about seriously large companies that are not applying the law correctly - growing pains IMO.

Wasn't the original point about a restocking fee after a home demo:

Downsides are a lack of demoing in some cases, although I know some manufacturers do offer home demos, some of the swines want a 20% restocking charge and if u are demoing gear that costs say £2000 thats £400 for the privelage!!! Sod that!

as opposed to an on line purchase.

The suggestion would then appear to be: buy it on line, try it at home, if you don't like it cancel the contract for a full refund.

 

[Fnuckle]

Very simple, if it is not the subject of the thread and is addressed to one of the posters on the thread then it is ad hominem.

I have put a link to this so many times it is silly, so if you wont read the link then here is the text.

Definition: Ad hominem is a Latin term meaning "to the man". It is short for "argumentum ad hominem" which refers to an argument against a man. An argument that is ad hominem is one that has deviated from the claims being made and has instead focused on the person making the claims.

This is *exactly* what I am saying. You keep saying I am refering to insults as ad hominem, I am not. I am saying that *on forums* ad hominem always leads to conflict and insults. Does it sink in this time

The two quotes above (both from you) contradict one another. The first (incorrectly) implies that insult and argumentum ad hominem are coextensive. The second (correctly) does not.

So, please be more precise in your terminology in future. Otherwise an army of philosophers will think at you in a bad way.

 

[Neil]

"Otherwise an army of philosophers will think at you in a bad way."

;-)

 

[danworth81]

According to trading standards that is illegal if you purchase on line, and they say test cases will be brought to court to stop the practice. There have been articles and news clips on tele about seriously large companies that are not applying the law correctly - growing pains IMO.

With regards to the 20% I mention this as a friend recently had a row with a dealer as he was not informed about this 20% restocking fee and was told it was in the small print, absolutely scandelous IMO, I didnt realise it was illegal!

So ultimately if they cannot charge this buying direct would be even better as u can have it sent straight to ur home and test with ur own gear in ur own room, I can understand having to foot the bill for the courier for the privelage but Im pretty sure if my mind serves me right that u refund that even?

 

[danworth81]

The two quotes above (both from you) contradict one another. The first (incorrectly) implies that insult and argumentum ad hominem are coextensive. The second (correctly) does not.

So, please be more precise in your terminology in future. Otherwise an army of philosophers will think at you in a bad way.

Its semms to me like the two of u guys are 'detail men'!

Guys who naturally by nature pick things to pieces and concentrate heavily on details and facts and are very precise in all practices in ur day to day life.

This is a really good thing IMO when it comes to business and products and its always best to scutinise everything which is probably why the pair of u are so successful at what u do

On the down side tho if two people like urselves get together with slightly different points of view the wars begin as u are both very precise in ur statements and both very committed to them!

No one wants to back down but maybe sometimes its batter to stand to one side and think its going nowhere, it has no real bearing on my life so balls to it!

Ur just gunna have to agree to disagree chaps

 

[Mescalito]

Its semms to me like the two of u guys are 'detail men'!

Guys who naturally by nature pick things to pieces and concentrate heavily on details and facts and are very precise in all practices in ur day to day life.

This is a really good thing IMO when it comes to business and products and its always best to scutinise everything which is probably why the pair of u are so successful at what u do

On the down side tho if two people like urselves get together with slightly different points of view the wars begin as u are both very precise in ur statements and both very committed to them!

No one wants to back down but maybe sometimes its batter to stand to one side and think its going nowhere, it has no real bearing on my life so balls to it!

Ur just gunna have to agree to disagree chaps

I have backed out of the great "ad hominem" debate, other than a PM to Richard.

But no, actually, your advice would be valid were the dispute to concern opinion. Ad hominem is extremely precisely defined. There is a correct definition. It is not Richard's.

Chris

PS, why all the "UR"'s? As far as I am aware ther is no message size limit in operation on the forum.

Chris

 

[danworth81]

Its their opinion on the definition of the subject for which I am refering too

I just suppose Im used to abbreviating certain words as a habit, although strangely enough they seems to be some of the shorter ones in a sentance.

I have to keep editing letters all the time and emails as I keep doing it there too, maybe its down to mobile phone texting I hate it and try to be as short and sweet as possible. If I get a question via text usually I just reply 'K' instead of saying okay

I suppose we all have our habits, my dog for instance wont stop licking his own ass!!

Dan

 

[Fnuckle]

Its semms to me like the two of u guys are 'detail men'!

Guys who naturally by nature pick things to pieces and concentrate heavily on details and facts and are very precise in all practices in ur day to day life.

This is a really good thing IMO when it comes to business and products and its always best to scutinise everything which is probably why the pair of u are so successful at what u do

On the down side tho if two people like urselves get together with slightly different points of view the wars begin as u are both very precise in ur statements and both very committed to them!

No one wants to back down but maybe sometimes its batter to stand to one side and think its going nowhere, it has no real bearing on my life so balls to it!

Ur just gunna have to agree to disagree chaps

You're right and my last post on the subject was my last post on the subject, although I reserve the right to issue a few 'grrs'. I've said my piece.

 

[Richard Dunn]

The two quotes above (both from you) contradict one another. The first (incorrectly) implies that insult and argumentum ad hominem are coextensive. The second (correctly) does not.

So, please be more precise in your terminology in future. Otherwise an army of philosophers will think at you in a bad way.

For me they are both the same.

 

[Markus S]

Richard, why did you remove the thread I started on your forum? IIRC it was called Thread to point out inconsistencies in Richard Dunn's thinking, or words to that effect. I think you actually agreed it was within the guidelines of your forum.

 

[Purite Audio]

Richard, why did you remove the thread I started on your forum? IIRC it was called Thread to point out inconsistencies in Richard Dunn's thinking, or words to that effect. I think you actually agreed it was within the guidelines of your forum.

He just didn't want to' add homme in' .
Keith

 

[Richard Dunn]

Richard, why did you remove the thread I started on your forum? IIRC it was called Thread to point out inconsistencies in Richard Dunn's thinking, or words to that effect. I think you actually agreed it was within the guidelines of your forum.

Because no body replied to it, it just sat there for no reason apart from as an indicator of your bias and desire to create conflict. I think it said "does anyone see inconsistencies in RD's post" or something similar, it was up for a few days and no one replied or posted, so I posted "if no one wishes to post on this thread within two days I will take it down" no one did so it was taken down.

 

[YNMOAN]

But how many viewed it? In all honesty I've never encountered 'lack of interest' as being a reason for moderators to delete a thread.

Many threads attract relatively few written responses but that does not mean that they are not of value to those that have read them.

__________________

As a point of interest, is not this latest discussion in breach of the AUP, as in involves the actions of another forum?

 

[Richard Dunn]

When a thread has been put up deliberatly to create conflict or criticism, which was obvious in this case, then both myself and fellow mods were perfectly willing to let it run if people wanted to post on it, but to leave it up as an unreplied to question (you must remember the OP had no comment or opinion it was just a request for it from others) and no one was willing to reply with an opinion, then what is the point of it, it contained no imformation apart from *one* person was trying to stir up conflict.

Now if it is so important to him then why didn't he put it up on the forum he is a mod of, namely Pink Fish or even here. So put it up here, I have no objections and then we well see all the usual suspects vent their spleen, but it wont be on topic as there have been no inconsistencies.

There are people who want me off the forums, your business partner Flatty is one of them and I am sure you share his views as I have been so critical of his products and business ethics. Why else would he arrive here within 48 hours of me beginning to post here again, he could have come any time for years, and look at his posting focus, well over 50% about me, not about the thread subject, always turning it to ad hominem, which yet again for people who don't understand it means addressing the poster and not the post.

 

[flatpopely]

Why else would he arrive here within 48 hours of me beginning to post here again, he could have come any time for years

Just to get the facts correct here. I saw that Rob posted on pfm and I sent a PM saying nice to see him posting again. He mentioned his involvement with ZG so I joined.