>Requesting change has never been how change is made
I'm not requesting. Please, point me where exactly where I've said that.
Suggesting is different from Requesting.
>Now you know two more Latin words in addition to "ad homimem".
Oh, dear, you want to teach me logic fallacy now?
What I did was not ad populum.
This is an ad populum:
A is an individual argumenting about a point. B is a group. B agrees with the point, therefore A is right.
This is what I did:
A affirm your post should be allowed in this community. B and C say "no" to it. Assuming a democracy, A's post should not be allowed.
I wasn't giving a conclusion about the argument ("your post is shit") based on other people agreeing with me. I was arguing about what should be allowed or not in this community.
Of course, this assumes we have a democracy here, I should have stated that. It may not be the case.
>Translation: Other IBs are also shit, so it's okay if I shit in this one, too.
No. That's your conclusion about a question I did and you couldn't answer.
>Next, try learning English.
I've already replied to you >>11363
>You don't get to decide what constitutes acceptable topics for the board.
Good point. Who decides then? The community itself constructs the community (bootstrap) or there's someone else that rules here (mod's?). I honestly don't know. Because if the people rulling here say that your kind of posts should be allowed (fake malwares and malware detection for windows-nsa), then I'll step back and go to other place. Else, you're probably minority here.
>are applicable outside of antivirus software on Windows.
No, you don't understood my point on the other thread. A system should not have 0day exploits, therefore should not have "malware detection". If you mean "intrusion detection", that's another thing. I even think intrusion detection is not necessary in a trully secure system, but that's another discussion.
>you're nothing but a consumer yourself.
You're relativising the meaning. Consumming is different from Consumerism. If we assume what you're saying, then existence is in itself consumption.
It's funny you use relativism, because computing (logics, actually) is based on enterely rejection of relativism.
Anyway, I see a big probablity of this two comments being samefagging, trying to get a "bandwagon effect": >>11415
So the points we should be discussing, in my opinion is:
1- Who rules this board? (odili or a mod should say it, not us)
2- What kind of posts should be allowed?
3- What direction this board should go:
A: quality posts
B: desktop threads
Please, stop bullshiting. We are not children here to be in an ad infinitum, we'll just loose time if you keep this.
Also, I'll not play your game this time (trying to get me angry or use ad hominems against you, so you can accuse me of hypocrisy). If you guys want me out, the mod's or administrator should say so.