|
Tactics
(The topics below describe several general tactics against which you may compare many of Mr. Sternlight's public USENET posts, in the opinion of the faq writer. There is a very large number of posts available for study in the USENET archives according to a search on DejaNews. Read some posts, and come to your own, independent conclusions. Different readers may come to different conclusions.)
Read Mr. Sternlight's posts in the alt.security.pgp and comp.security.pgp.discuss newgroups.
Compare what you read in his posts, and excerpts therefrom, with the following general statements of argumentation tactics.
cf. Assertion
Making controversial points by assertion, without cite to independent sources, or other supports for the view expressed, when that view is comprised of factual, technical or scientific matter, rather than opinion.
cf. Favorite Themes
A favorable view of certain positions taken by governments in regard to cryptography and its regulation, or with regard to the balance between a citizen's interests and the government's interests.
cf. Order and Control
A focus on the rationale for government or bureaucracy to prevail, or for others to yield to it, such as in the matter of the government's power to regulate the export of software, and potentially, even books containing text of programs for cryptography.
cf. No General Right to Privacy
The absence of the right of individuals to be free from invasions of their privacy, even to the contents of one's mind (such as a cryptographic passphrase), by the government or others is extremely limited, and there is no general right to privacy found in the US Constitution.
cf. Intellectual Property Issues That Focus on PGP® and/or its Author
Longstanding issues regarding the dislike of practices that may be attributed to PGP or to its author with regard to intellectual property issues, at the time of PGP's origin, and since. Are there frequent rehashes, without apparent provocation? (Note that RSADSI, the people presumably injured by the action, have never taken Zimmermann to court over the matter.)
cf. Claim to Authority, Expertise
Information about roles, positions, education and other exposures which give certain qualifications and expertise, often posed as greater than those of others participating in newsgroup dialogue.
cf. FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) Three major foci: 1) The National Security Agency, or others in the government, can very possibly penetrate your privacy at will, and resisting is futile; 2) there are great penalties for not going along with authority, and great danger of detection if one resists, particularly with regard to export of strong crypto, even published in a book; 3) there is great vulnerability to legal action, even as a consumer, if one does not follow a certain view of patent law, as it relates to a certain crypto company.
cf. Response to Reply
Does the post provide controversy or is it presented in a tone likely to be viewed by some readers as controversial or personally insulting?
cf. Demand for Proof
In response, if no proof has been provided for an initial point, is there a demand for proof by those who present disagreement with an unsupported point?
cf. Move to Informal Logic
Is there a move to describe logic in technical terms, at the point when facts and evidence have been presented that challenge an original point? As Edward Abbey wrote, "When the philosopher's argument becomes tedious, complicated, and opaque, it is usually a sign that he is attempting to prove as true to the intellect what is plainly false to common sense."
cf. Redefining the Subject of the Thread
After evidence challenging or refuting an original point is provided, the claim arises that such content is "off topic" and that the actual subject of the thread is such-and-such, which would exclude discussion of the content refuting the point.
cf. Dictionary Definitions
Use of a dictionary (such as Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, $25.00 or less) as the ultimate judge on questions of meaning. Even when legal or technical terms are in dispute, is there reference to this little dictionary as the "authority"? A move to dictionary definitions may assume that meanings of words are captured in simple descriptions of linquistic practice as provided in a writer's choice of cheap dictionary. The use of the dictionary in this manner in debates attempts to give it inappropriate authority; it involves the assumption that the common use of a term is the one for which there is the best justification, an assumption that is not usually warranted. Refer also to etymological falacy, humptydumptying, and stipulative definition.
cf. Etymological Falacy
The unreliable and often misleading move from a word's original meaning to its current declared meaning. Because a word or phrase originally meant one thing, the assumption is that it will always keep that meaning, even when it forms only a part of a word or phrase and is used in a different context.
cf. Stipulative Definition
These are definitions which are the result of conscious and explicit decisions about how a word or phrase is to be used, rather than definitions based on the analysis of how words are usually used. An example is to use the word "algorithm" and then stipulatively define it as "algorithm and process".
cf. Humptydumptying
The term comes from Through the Looking Glass and refers to giving words special meanings.
When Alice asks Humpty Dumpty what he meant by "glory", he replies, "I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'" Alice points out that this isn't the meaning of "glory"."When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty answers, in rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master-- that's all."
This tactic is often deployed when the original arguments have been challenged and contrary evidence provided. The "special meaning" given to a term protects the original argument, if accepted.
cf. Ad Hoc Clauses
Clauses added after the original point is challenged, to make the original argument consistent with some new observation or discovered fact.
cf. Straw Man
A caricature of an opponent's view set up simply so that one can knock it down. Literally, a straw man is dummy made of straw used for target practice. Sometimes it is a deliberate ploy; in which case it is a disreputable form of rhetoric. More often, it involves a degree of wishful thinking stemming from reluctance to attribute great intelligence or subtlety to someone with whom one strongly disagrees. Overconfidence in one's own position may lead one to treat dissenting views as easy targets when in fact they may be more complex and resistant to simple attacks.
cf. Ad Hominem
Getting personal with a person who has challenged a point, rather than dealing with the point itself. This is done by attempting to shift the focus from the points made, to some non-relevant aspect of the person making the point. Sometimes, this may involve derogation by questioning the status of the person's education, experience, motivation, upbringing, or even sanity and psychological health.
cf. Claim of Being Personally Attacked
This is an emotional appeal to pity (ad misericordiam) based on the view that a challenge to one's point may be a personal attack. Is there frequent complaint of personal attack?.
cf. Claim of Private Support in Email
While some points made are agreed to by some or many, others may gain no support in the newsgroup. On occasion, is there statement that private email that is received supports the poster's point, but that the writers do not choose to post those views on the newsgroup?
cf. The Plonk!
Does the poster often abandon the field by "Plonking" the person, by stating that he will no longer read or respond to posts by the person? Is this of very short duration?
|
|
This FAQ is NOT authorized, endorsed, reviewed, authored nor supported in any way by Mr. Sternlight. It is an independent compilation of quotations gleaned from Mr. Sternlight's newsgroup posts, opinion and public dialogue related to this prolific newsgroup poster and famous "net personality" and public policy advocate. Interested readers are invited and encouraged to read the entire context of Mr. Sternlight's quotes, using search engines such as DejaNews. (Note there is a newsgroup named "alt.fan.david-sternlight".) Mr. Sternlight posts most frequently to comp.security.pgp.discuss and alt.privacy and has several thousand posts on USENET public newsgroups, as reported by DejaNews search, on various subjects including patents, licensing, cryptography, and public policy on those matters. His prolific and frequent public policy advocacy in crypto newsgroups focuses primarily on the US government policy, currently in robust public debate, regarding strong encryption and privacy issues, but also on patent, copyright, trademark and licensing issues. All product and service names are the property of their owners.
|
|
