Article discussing Go, could well be D

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Jeff Nowakowski" <jeff at dilacero.org> wrote in message 
news:ist7oe$17ge$1 at digitalmars.com...
> On 06/09/2011 03:27 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>
>> Once again, I wasn't Pike-bashing. You're misinterpreting my words
>> and assuming I did. Billions of people, obviously myself included,
>> have never done *anything* of real significant note whether recently
>> or 800 years ago. And everyone knows that. So how the heck can saying
>> "some guy who did something significant 40 years ago and hasn't done
>> a damn thing of note since" even *possibly* be taken as an insult?
>
> Maybe because he has done things of note since? Who is it for you to
> judge? And then comparing him against Andrei, to boot. I don't want to
> get into a debate on his career, or turn this into an Andre vs Pike
> flamefest, so I won't drag up what people have worked on. My point is
> you didn't have to go there.
>

Yea, I didn't *have* to go there. I don't *have* post anything here at all. 
So what? That obviously that doesn't imply that I can't or shouldn't.

> Yes, what you did was inflammatory and ad hominem.

No, what I'm starting to do *now* is inflammatory. What I did before is make 
an observational statement which you twisted around into a condemnation. If 
I made a statement about someone (who apperently seems to be some demigod) 
and that statement that didn't involve any gushing over the guy, then tough 
shit, them's the breaks.

As for ad hominem, you don't seem to even understand the concept. What makes 
something an ad hominem fallacy is assigning truth value based on *who* 
agrees with, disagrees with, or is otherwise associated with it. What *I* 
did was make a statement *about* a person. No, that is *not* an ad hominem 
fallacy. And no, just because it wasn't a *good* statement doesn't imply it 
was a *bad* statement. And even if it *were* a bad statement, which it 
clearly wasn't, I don't have to be an elected or appointed judge, or God, or 
anything like that to be entited to have that viewpoint and voice it.