User blog comment:RePeat/Community Poll on Message Walls/@comment-7855039-20130627034219/@comment-4845243-20130628035035

I don't have time for a long response, but let me see if I can get the gist of it.

Your points:
 * Message walls are more public than talk pages
 * you didn't know about the diff button, and thus you think others likewise did not
 * message walls are forums
 * we have a "right to privacy' which you seem to interpret as having messages which other people cannot read
 * talk page conversations have been more private in the past than current message wall conversations
 * blog comments = message wall

Hmm, where to begin...

Well, the main problem here is that you are not taking the previous points made into context for your response:

Your original argument was basically an expression of concern about people reading the messages. You have now (cunningly or unwittingly?) switched the topic of the discussion back to a stance that involved people getting involved in the conversation itself. As such, your argument really is doing nothing more than refuting a straw man.

Consider; this discussion is/was taking place in light of my comment about the possibility of a rule limiting the extent to which people may respond. If this rule is in place, none of your concerns raised in your response are legitimate.

If we switch back to the argument about reading, your position about message walls falls apart. My whole point was that talk pages do not afford more practical privacy against people who read but do not comment. I left that assumed in light of other premises.

So basically, you were refuting a point I didn't make*: which is the straw man fallacy. If you'd like to actually present an argument showing that talk pages are more private than message walls when it comes to reading but not commenting, then please do.

Oh shucks, this turned out long anyways.


 * That point being that message walls are as private as talk pages for normal conversations. Which I was never arguing.