On 9/18/25 12:32 AM, Javier Martinez wrote: > El 18/9/25 a las 6:15, Alexis escribió: >> >> At this point, i must conclude that you're not discussing this in good >> faith, since not only has Gentoo dev Eli also noted how your >> understanding is incorrect, but you also seem to be implying that i'm >> saying things i didn't say: > > You did not give arguments at all.
If you agree that Alexis hasn't offered any arguments against what you are saying, then WHY, pray tell, are you so vehemently angry about the topic such that you must send hundreds of bitter, furious emails to complain about the thing you yourself admit NO ONE HAS ARGUED AGAINST. > Linus Torvalds is god, has him to be always correct by this reason??. Do > you know what "ad hominem fallacy" is? Do you know what a "non sequitur" is? You seem to be quite good at them. With regard to Linus Torvalds and the ad hominem fallacy. It appears you do not know what "ad hominem fallacy" is. For your elucidation, I'll quote its definition: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem """ attack your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument """ This is not applicable here. If only you knew your list of logical fallacies. I would have recommended the best logical fallacy for you to accuse Alexis of would be that old classic, "appeal to authority fallacy": https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority """ because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true """ It is certainly a structurally valid claim of the existence of a fallacy. Although I'm afraid claiming a fallacy exists doesn't free you of the requirement to argue facts with facts. I didn't use authority as my argument: I offered facts about portage etc. Alexis clearly felt it was no longer worth arguing with you at all. -- Eli Schwartz
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
