Re: [mmox] mmox Digest, Vol 1, Issue 111

["[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>]

Dear Dan,

"Ad hominem" ("to the man") refers to people, not software programs or platforms. Criticism of software concepts or people's ideas isn't an "ad hominem" attack; labelling perjoratively isn't even an "ad hominem" attack. Even if this can somehow be construed as a "violation," there's been any number of such acts already on this list, that met with your silence. Ultimately *you're* the one the characterized OpenSim as "Leninist"; I tend to agree, given the absence of protections of IP and the rigid conceptions about how the Metaverse must be organized with collectivization. 

As for "logical fallicies," yes, there's always the risk of being kicked off the Latin boys' school debate team for violations of these sorts of arcane rhetoric rules. But, commonsense can prevail nevertheless and you can have a normal conversation urging technologists not to sneak ideological prescriptions into the protocols. As for bullying, your effort to invoke the boys' school rules would be characterized as just that. 

It's important not to weld worldviews into the code and into the interoperability in advance, whether Leninism, militarism, or any "ism". There should be authentic diversity and choice, and not a forced march to technocommunism. Virtual worlds need to be sustained by commerce, and commerce is sustained by property rights. Private property rights in general and specifically intellectual property rights are ok; they are not wrong, they enable people to make a living, including technology vendors. Copyleftism and collectivism are only one ideology for the Internet, and can't be the only one.

Since there are a number of "Dan Olivares" on the Internet, could you explain which one you are?

Prokofy Neva


____________________________________________________________
Click here to save cash and find low rates on auto loans.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTLaW0FYMjWhFUjLaV0gAMuavgDTXgbYSdN85xrhA3CrEcy6vcRaoQ/