China charges U.S. monopolizes the Internet...

[SirNitram]

New Nightmare Scenario from the Department of Homeland Paranoia:

North Korea releases the new domain suffix:

.KimJongIlIsTheBestRulerInTheWorldBushSucks

There's a limit on the damage you can do with domain names and IP ranges.

[Darth Wong]

I'm not going to pretend the idea didn't come from China ... it DID in this case, which means we're not talking about an abstract proposal, we're talking about a specific request from a specific regime, and I'm not going to blithely ignore the political motivations of that regime for making such a request. They want an Internet that's easier to control, that provides a better information infrastructure for controlling their population .... I will take inefficiency and yes, even too much U.S. control, over *that* path any day of the week.

OK, what do you not understand about the ad-hominem fallacy? Even if China does have nefarious motives for suggesting it, why do you think that the idea cannot or should not be discussed on its own merits?

How many times should I repeat that I don't think ICANN reform, in the abstract, is a bad thing before that message gets across to you? Is it impossible for you to recognize, or would acknowledging that I actually already AGREED with you on this multiple times deny you a chance to throw this 'ad hominem' junior high debate team crap at me?

The fact that you insist on employing an ad-hominem fallacy cannot be wiped out by laughably trying to dismiss it as "junior high debate team crap". It's a logical fallacy whether you recognize that or not.

[Chmee]

I'm not going to pretend the idea didn't come from China ... it DID in this case, which means we're not talking about an abstract proposal, we're talking about a specific request from a specific regime, and I'm not going to blithely ignore the political motivations of that regime for making such a request. They want an Internet that's easier to control, that provides a better information infrastructure for controlling their population .... I will take inefficiency and yes, even too much U.S. control, over *that* path any day of the week.

OK, what do you not understand about the ad-hominem fallacy? Even if China does have nefarious motives for suggesting it, why do you think that the idea cannot or should not be discussed on its own merits?

How many times should I repeat that I don't think ICANN reform, in the abstract, is a bad thing before that message gets across to you? Is it impossible for you to recognize, or would acknowledging that I actually already AGREED with you on this multiple times deny you a chance to throw this 'ad hominem' junior high debate team crap at me?

The fact that you insist on employing an ad-hominem fallacy cannot be wiped out by laughably trying to dismiss it as "junior high debate team crap". It's a logical fallacy whether you recognize that or not.

God, I'm talking to a bot, aren't I? It's just formulaic responses based on keywords in my previous post. Ok ... you got me, good one.

[Darth Wong]

God, I'm talking to a bot, aren't I? It's just formulaic responses based on keywords in my previous post. Ok ... you got me, good one.

If you're not mature enough to ever admit the slightest error, fine. Go ahead. Pat yourself on the back for your l33t skills at stubborn smart-assery.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Oh for fuck's sake, this is your rationale for "international" being the same as "authoritarian regimes"? The fact that authoritarian regimes are part of the international community? Gee, we'd better not do anything internationally, because that would be giving more control to authoritarian regimes!

You've split my sentence and taken my point out of context. I never said or implied that this point applies to all aspects of international cooperation. For example, there is nothing wrong with cooporating with aurthoritarian nations on say stopping the drug trade because their type of government is irrelevant to that issue. Such is not the case with the internet.

Given that ICANN does not have the power to regulate the content of the Internet at all and only controls the registration of domains, this is a facile but ultimately pointless argument.

Not really- control registration could easily be politicized and abused. The process of "internationalizing", under a UN type model, makes it more likely that it will be.

Do you refuse to give to UNICEF for the same reasons?

Feeding suffering people, and giving authoritarin nations, which don't give a spit about freespeech, control over the internet are two completely different things.

[Edi]

All right, I've had it.

White Haven, Chmee, Blkberry and the rest of you fucktards who have been strawmanning Mike, claiming that he doesn't know what he's talking about and just plain ignoring him, I want you to listen up and take a fucking good long look at the following:

ICANN Special: The Triangulations of Esther Dyson
ICANN Special: New legal hurdles (Part 1)
ICANN Special: New legal hurdles (Part 2)
WIPO domain dispute coup continues
WIPO still kissing famous people's arses
WIPO loads dice in domain dispute conference
ICANN launches Whois review
Why ICANN's domain dispute rules are flawed: Part I
Why ICANN's domain dispute rules are flawed: Part II
WIPO rewrites UDRP yet again
Professor tears ICANN domain dispute policy to pieces
WIPO tries to place itself above the law
What the hell is UDRP?
Net law expert slams domain dispute process
MPAA extends Net crusade to domains
Powergen awarded whistleblower's domain

That should do for starters. It took me literally only 5 seconds to come up with these with the search parameter "ICANN WIPO", from a single source, and there is a shitload of more from other sources for anyone who wants to do even a cursory search.

So I think that it is time for Mike to accept the concessions from the lot of those who tried to dismiss his arguments. In the future, kindly DO NOT try to bullshit about subjects you clearly have no fucking clue about.

Oh noes, China said something bad about the US, therefore there must be no problem at all whatsoever, even though someone known to never make arguments he can't back up is saying that there are real problems that do merit concern.

Edi

[White Haven]

Hey now, don't fucking lump me in that. I asked if he had links, that's NOT the fucking same. Thanks for providing the links, but cram that attitude problem right up your ass.

[Edi]

Hey now, don't fucking lump me in that.

Ah, sorry, my mistake. I just reread the thread from the beginning, and you became unintentional collateral damage because your name stuck in my head for being one of the first to challenge Mike. My apologies, I hereby withdraw your inclusion in that list in my previous post.

That withdrawal does not apply to the others mentioned by name.

Edi

[White Haven]

Danke. I'll run over those links when I get home from work, that's not something I have time to monkey with in a retail environment.

[Chmee]

Oh noes, China said something bad about the US, therefore there must be no problem at all whatsoever, even though someone known to never make arguments he can't back up is saying that there are real problems that do merit concern.

Edi

Wow, talk about strawmanning .... is there one person in the thread who didn't AGREE that there are real problems? Please take these bales elsewhere.

[Edi]

Danke. I'll run over those links when I get home from work, that's not something I have time to monkey with in a retail environment.

Wise decision. I imagine it will take you something like two or three hours to go through all of them, they aren't short two or three paragraph soundbytes, and each one has between one and half a dozen links to related stories. I daresay you will not have a very high opinion of ICANN by the time you finish...

Edi

[White Haven]

I'm a computer tech, I don't have a very high opinion of anyone in the industry, unless proven otherwise.

[Edi]

Wow, talk about strawmanning .... is there one person in the thread who didn't AGREE that there are real problems? Please take these bales elsewhere.

Look, you have yet to concede on your initial bullshit arguments, all you've done is backpedal while denying that you ever made such arguments in the first place, so kindly sod off.

It won't kill you to admit you made a mistake, and it won't hurt your standing here, but trying to stick to your guns without that admission in this case will. I've been wrong on some topics, you can for example take a look at the relatively recent "German Prostitution & Welfare " thread where I managed a truly masterful performance of making a fool of myself. Especially the final post before I realized my mistake was rather priceless. I also happened to be man enough to admit to my foolishness and apologize, though I didn't particularly relish the feeling of humiliation.

Edi

[Chmee]

Wow, talk about strawmanning .... is there one person in the thread who didn't AGREE that there are real problems? Please take these bales elsewhere.

Look, you have yet to concede on your initial bullshit arguments, all you've done is backpedal while denying that you ever made such arguments in the first place, so kindly sod off.

It won't kill you to admit you made a mistake, and it won't hurt your standing here, but trying to stick to your guns without that admission in this case will. I've been wrong on some topics, you can for example take a look at the relatively recent "German Prostitution & Welfare " thread where I managed a truly masterful performance of making a fool of myself. Especially the final post before I realized my mistake was rather priceless. I also happened to be man enough to admit to my foolishness and apologize, though I didn't particularly relish the feeling of humiliation.

Edi

You know, actually I admit mistakes and concede points to intelligent arguments all the time.

But, nobody has pointed out either so far in this thread. I agreed where I agreed, and I disagreed when people spouted bullshit ... you'll find me pretty consistent on that. Maybe you'll be so kind as to point out something that you consider a factual error on my part in this thread that you feel I should 'admit to'.

[Edi]

You know, actually I admit mistakes and concede points to intelligent arguments all the time.

But, nobody has pointed out either so far in this thread. I agreed where I agreed, and I disagreed when people spouted bullshit ... you'll find me pretty consistent on that. Maybe you'll be so kind as to point out something that you consider a factual error on my part in this thread that you feel I should 'admit to'.

Let's see:

I'm focusing on the OP and the complete absurdity of China asking anybody to do ANYTHING to make information flow more 'fair', because it is patently absurd.

That there is you dismissing an argument without even considering its merits just because of who made it. Newsflash: It is possible for a complete asshat to make a coherent and correct argument, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Then you go about talking about how you don't think ICANN isn't really well run and still claiming that there is nothing wrong with the thing you said in what I quoted above. This is what is known as backpedaling and it is not much appreciated here. If you want to criticize China's human rights and censorship record, fine, start a thread on it, but when they actually make a request about a major recognized fault related to fairness and transparency of the administration of the Internet and its domain names, you have no fucking business dismissing it with handwaving and then trying to pretend you weren't doing that.

So would you like some cheese with that whine?

Edi

[Chmee]

You know, actually I admit mistakes and concede points to intelligent arguments all the time.

But, nobody has pointed out either so far in this thread. I agreed where I agreed, and I disagreed when people spouted bullshit ... you'll find me pretty consistent on that. Maybe you'll be so kind as to point out something that you consider a factual error on my part in this thread that you feel I should 'admit to'.

Let's see:

I'm focusing on the OP and the complete absurdity of China asking anybody to do ANYTHING to make information flow more 'fair', because it is patently absurd.

That there is you dismissing an argument without even considering its merits just because of who made it. Newsflash: It is possible for a complete asshat to make a coherent and correct argument, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Then you go about talking about how you don't think ICANN isn't really well run and still claiming that there is nothing wrong with the thing you said in what I quoted above. This is what is known as backpedaling and it is not much appreciated here. If you want to criticize China's human rights and censorship record, fine, start a thread on it, but when they actually make a request about a major recognized fault related to fairness and transparency of the administration of the Internet and its domain names, you have no fucking business dismissing it with handwaving and then trying to pretend you weren't doing that.

So would you like some cheese with that whine?

Edi

So, that's a 'no' on my question about factual errors? I can only AGREE with the wisdom of ICANN reform so many times, can you give me a guesstimate on how many times it will take before it registers at your end?

The start of this topic focused quite often on Chinese duplicity in this area, it was in no way off-topic of me to continue that discussion. You want to talk about something else, be my guest, but you can stop telling me which part of the issue to be interested in any old time now ...

[Edi]

So, that's a 'no' on my question about factual errors? I can only AGREE with the wisdom of ICANN reform so many times, can you give me a guesstimate on how many times it will take before it registers at your end?

The start of this topic focused quite often on Chinese duplicity in this area, it was in no way off-topic of me to continue that discussion. You want to talk about something else, be my guest, but you can stop telling me which part of the issue to be interested in any old time now ...

And even if the Chinese have ulterior motives, how does that invalidate their argument? Yes, you have agreed that the argument has merit, only after ytou were called on it, so why do you still insist on the red herring?

[Darth Wong]

So, that's a 'no' on my question about factual errors? I can only AGREE with the wisdom of ICANN reform so many times, can you give me a guesstimate on how many times it will take before it registers at your end?

The start of this topic focused quite often on Chinese duplicity in this area, it was in no way off-topic of me to continue that discussion. You want to talk about something else, be my guest, but you can stop telling me which part of the issue to be interested in any old time now ...

And even if the Chinese have ulterior motives, how does that invalidate their argument? Yes, you have agreed that the argument has merit, only after ytou were called on it, so why do you still insist on the red herring?

Chmee will never concede; this is a person who once made mistakes on military technology that were easily verified to be totally wrong, and never conceded those mistakes either.

Chmee's argument at this point boils down to "I believe the thread topic has nothing to do with ICANN and everything to do with China, so that's what I discussed and it's not a red-herring and you can't prove that my preferred interpretation of the OP is wrong, nyaa nyaa nyaa".

[Chmee]

So, that's a 'no' on my question about factual errors? I can only AGREE with the wisdom of ICANN reform so many times, can you give me a guesstimate on how many times it will take before it registers at your end?

The start of this topic focused quite often on Chinese duplicity in this area, it was in no way off-topic of me to continue that discussion. You want to talk about something else, be my guest, but you can stop telling me which part of the issue to be interested in any old time now ...

And even if the Chinese have ulterior motives, how does that invalidate their argument? Yes, you have agreed that the argument has merit, only after ytou were called on it, so why do you still insist on the red herring?

Ahh, perhaps I see the nature of the misunderstanding.

At no point did I say that an argument about ICANN reform lacked merit ... what I questioned was whether, in their statements, that is really what the Chinese are after. I think they would like to play off European and Asian unhappiness with ICANN administration against the U.S., but do you think their goal is a reformed ICANN, or an Internet that better suits their governmental and ideological purposes?

I think their argument is clever but disingenuous, because I don't think their goal is a goal that you or I would share. By calling their motives into question, I'm calling into question their true purpose for making the statement ... and I don't see how that qualifies as a red herring at all, I wasn't the first person to make that kind of critique in this topic.

[Chmee]

So, that's a 'no' on my question about factual errors? I can only AGREE with the wisdom of ICANN reform so many times, can you give me a guesstimate on how many times it will take before it registers at your end?

The start of this topic focused quite often on Chinese duplicity in this area, it was in no way off-topic of me to continue that discussion. You want to talk about something else, be my guest, but you can stop telling me which part of the issue to be interested in any old time now ...

And even if the Chinese have ulterior motives, how does that invalidate their argument? Yes, you have agreed that the argument has merit, only after ytou were called on it, so why do you still insist on the red herring?

Chmee will never concede; this is a person who once made mistakes on military technology that were easily verified to be totally wrong, and never conceded those mistakes either.

Chmee's argument at this point boils down to "I believe the thread topic has nothing to do with ICANN and everything to do with China, so that's what I discussed and it's not a red-herring and you can't prove that my preferred interpretation of the OP is wrong, nyaa nyaa nyaa".

You are truly a simple creature, aren't you? Your penchant for completely mis-stating other people's opinions to strawman them is .... tiresome and childish. Get back to me when you want to have a conversation involving a tiny amount of intellectual honesty.

[Darth Wong]

You are truly a simple creature, aren't you? Your penchant for completely mis-stating other people's opinions to strawman them is .... tiresome and childish. Get back to me when you want to have a conversation involving a tiny amount of intellectual honesty.

Care to show which part of that statement was wrong instead of ranting about it like the whiny little dipshit that you are proving yourself to be?

[Admiral Valdemar]

Chmee: It is you who has repeatedly shown a lack of proper understanding in these debates. If you want to ignore your obvious mistakes in the past, that's your prerogative. But don't hound Mike for coming up with basic logical fallacies against you. Understand that this board is not one where fallacies such as those are tolerated, it is rational thought that is expected to back up any such opinions on the matter. I think Edi did a fine piece of work in posting the many links that show what you're really ignoring.

[Chmee]

"I believe the thread topic has nothing to do with ICANN and everything to do with China"

Never said that, never said anything close to that, pure unadulterated bullshit to say that I did. You want to step back from the ledge and take some deep breaths.

[Chmee]

Chmee: It is you who has repeatedly shown a lack of proper understanding in these debates. If you want to ignore your obvious mistakes in the past, that's your prerogative. But don't hound Mike for coming up with basic logical fallacies against you. Understand that this board is not one where fallacies such as those are tolerated, it is rational thought that is expected to back up any such opinions on the matter. I think Edi did a fine piece of work in posting the many links that show what you're really ignoring.

I'll have to respectfully disagree with that analysis of the situation, A-V.

[Darth Wong]

"I believe the thread topic has nothing to do with ICANN and everything to do with China"

Never said that, never said anything close to that, pure unadulterated bullshit to say that I did. You want to step back from the ledge and take some deep breaths.

Oh right, because saying that the thread is all about China and saying that it's all about "China's duplicity" rather than ICANN is soooooo much different

Never mind your pathetic refusal to admit that the ad-hominem fallacy is in fact a fallacy. What the fuck is your problem, shithead? Why can't you admit even the most obvious fucking error?