Do you want to approach this systematically, or do you want to string together a series of continually evasive comments? The sentence you've just quoted comes from your second link, not your first, which is what marwis was addressing, which itself means your "reply" here can in no way be construed as actually responding to his or her point.
Either source is fair play, of course, but it would be a waste of time for anyone to engage, as an attempt to prosecute any of your claims, without some kind of indicator that you're not just going to abandon the pretext for the current line of inquiry at any given moment and try to hop to another branch.
Every time I run into someone trying this trick, it reminds me of a Scott Aaronson post about people who are either incapable or unwilling to subject their "side" of an issue to logical deduction:
> What fascinated me was that, with every single issue we discussed, we went around in a similar circle — and Kurt didn’t seem to see any problem with this, just so long as the number of 2SAT clauses that he had to resolve to get a contradiction was large enough. [...] Inspired by conversations with Kurt and others, I hereby wish to propose a different theory of fundamentalist psychology. My theory is this: fundamentalists use a system of logical inference wherein you only have to apply the inference rules two or three times before you stop. (The exact number of inferences can vary, depending on how much you like the conclusion.)
I provided a counter example that shows they didn't.
That's not enough, and you claimed the example was the only one in existence, so I provided a second, which must have been a surprise to you!
Both use 'open source' in a similar context. One even capitalises it as a proper noun and presents it as a movement people should get behind.
What is your argument at this point? Both authors of those emails are time travellers or something? Do you think someone is fabricating these emails? Why would they do that and how would they get them onto these third-party websites?
> What is your argument at this point? Both authors of those emails are time travellers or something?
You know it's not.
> Do you think someone is fabricating these emails? Why would they do that and how would they get them onto these third-party websites?
Once again: any attempt to engage requires as a precondition some kind of indicator that doing so wouldn't be a monumental waste of time. You seem comfortable providing assurance that such a thing will remain forever absent.
> any attempt to engage requires as a precondition some kind of indicator that doing so wouldn't be a monumental waste of Tim
Since you are engaging by replying, you must have some kind of indicator? You chose to reply in the first place and to keep replying.
And you said you were only aware of one example, so you must be rapidly re-examining your own position, right?
We can restart the conversation if you like? What do you think is wrong with my multiple examples of the use of the term, in context, before they claimed to have coined it? Why don't they count in your mind?
There's an implicit "further"—as in "engage further"—and an explicit "to prosecute any of your claims". It's clear enough what type of "engaging" I'm referring to.
What fascinated me was that, even laying out my awareness of the "neverending fractal of bullshit" tactic and making it clear it wouldn't work, we went around in a similar circle — and Chris didn't seem to see any problem with this, just so long as he thought that even if you couldn't be fooled into wasting your time addressing his claims on the original topic under the mistaken belief that he was coming to the table in good faith, he might stand a chance fooling you into wasting time arguing about why you weren't willing to waste time arguing with him.
It's not a 'neverending fractal of bullshit' - it's two emails showing that the term was used before they claimed to have coined it. I showed a second after you complained it was just one. Are they bullshit? Why? I'm not going in in a circle - I'm still pointing at these two examples you haven't explained yet.
At the moment you've just entered a conversation, said you don't agree, then refused to explain why when asked, and complained that you'd be a fool to reply. Why get involved in the first place when you don't have any arugments to offer?
Sorry, I replied to the wrong thread. The example use of Open Source in that NT thread above is actually rather convincing. Seems like it existed for a while just wasn't in common use. Indeed '98 as the inception date seems a bit late to me.
I don't think that's an honest description of what's in that email. It says:
> Caldera believes an open source code model benefits the industry in many ways
So they're already using the phrase 'open source' as a compound adjective.
> The One that is always held up as proof
Well it's not just one email. For example here's another, from 1993:
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.wi...
It uses the term with the same meaning:
> Open Source is best for everyone in the long run.