[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Robin Cover scripsit:
> There is absolutely no "paranoia" here. [IMO, you should not
> use this term to describe your colleagues unless you are
> licensed clinically and your colleagues are your patients;
> in that case, your clinical appraisal would not be made
> public on XML-DEV. "paranoia" is ad hominem.]
IMHO this is over the top. First of all, "paranoia" has
a legitimate non-technical sense as well as the technical one.
m-w.com (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed.)
defines the two senses thus:
1 : a psychosis characterized by systematized delusions
of persecution or grandeur usually without hallucinations
2 : a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward
excessive or irrational suspiciousness and
distrustfulness of others
Clearly the second sense is meant here.
In addition, it is not ad hominem to attack an argument as
paranoia; it would be ad hominem to attack you as a paranoid.
--
John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith. --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_
|
