Feds arrest and charge exiled Chinese billionaire over massive crypto fraud Meet the newest member of the crypto rogues' gallery: Ho Wan Kwok, aka Guo Wengui, aka Miles Guo, whom the US Department of Justice on Wednesday arrested over what investigators have described as a "sprawling and complex scheme … to solicit investments in various entities and programs through false statements and representations …
"Australian Strategic Policy Institute ... depicting him as "corrupt and not to be trusted."
Apparently ASPI receives funding from defence contractors such as Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman, Thales Group and Raytheon Technologies ,,, Microsoft, Oracle Australia, Telstra, and Google.
His position appears to have annoyed Beijing: think tank the Australian Strategic Policy Institute detected a state-backed misinformation campaign depicting him as "corrupt and not to be trusted.”
Are we now to realise and accept, in particular and peculiar specific regard to Ho Wan Kwok, aka Guo Wengui, aka Miles Guo, that the think tank, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute are guilty of misinforming state backed campaigns?
Such a reality would render them a practically worthless liability for any of their customer clients thinking them a prize asset with valuable truthful insight/foresight to deliver leverage and market advantage, so no small matter to be ignored or forgotten whenever so much is at stake to be lost and easily used against one to destroy all credibility in all of one’s offerings.
You can read the indictment, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a "Miles Guo," a/k/a "Miles Kwok," a/k/a "Guo Wengui," a/k/a "Brother Seven," a/k/a "The Principal,” here .... https://cryptome.org/2023/03/kwok-002.pdf
Never mind chatgpt, a drunken monkey flailing at a keyboard with a live haddock in each hand is better than that textual effluvium. ..... David 132
Such an ad hominem attack, Dan 132, more likely than not indicates/proves that one cannot honestly dispute the opinion offered.
Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term that refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue. The most common form of this fallacy is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".The valid types of ad hominem arguments are generally only encountered in specialized philosophical usage. These typically refer to the dialectical strategy of using the target's own beliefs and arguments against them, while not agreeing with the validity of those beliefs and arguments. .... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
And in these days of 0days and ChatGPTs, liable to cause perversions and corruptions in Large Language Models if phishing and processing information for transforming into intelligence from the rich sees in the likes of commentary posted and published for situations worthy of the interest of The Register .......
I believe Microsoft (and their machines) started working on GPT-5 just before GPT-4 was released, i.e. GPT-5 is currently assimilating all of the queries and responses from GPT-4, along with your Office files (probably), your computer code that you wrote with the help of CoPilot, and anything you have said on Teams, LinkedIn, and publicly accessible webforums like The Register since then.. ..... cyberdemon - "Re: Not so smart”
Play nice and do no evil is sound advice if ever inclined to front nonsense in defence of the introduction of straw men trailing and trialing paper tigers, for the chance then of unintended negative consequences is correspondingly high.
Hmm, accusing someone of an ad hominem attack incorrectly[1], where do I keep seeing that?
Ah ha, amanfromMars1 is a Flat Earther!
[1] Bonus points for actually quoting a definition of ad hominem and *still* getting it wrong!
Unless - maybe amanfromMars1 actually self-identifies as a live haddock, which could explain so much!
Surely not incorrect, the one in the corner, for it certainly was a case of the man being tackled rather than the ball played, no matter what colour glasses one would be wearing.
But no matter, it is not important whenever so easily ignored.
maybe amanfromMars1 actually self-identifies as a live haddock, which could explain so much!...... the one in the corner
Now that I can advise and assure you is a load of codswallop. :-)
> it certainly was a case of the man being tackled rather than the ball played
Oh dearie, dearie me - the sentence you complained about was
>> Never mind chatgpt, a drunken monkey flailing at a keyboard with a live haddock in each hand is better than that textual effluvium.
Which says that the *content* of your first message is textual effluvium and we could get better *content* by hiring a fish-obsessed simian. There was nothing in that which said anything at all about your character, your motives or any other attribute you may or may not possess, beyond the point that the *content* you produced was low quality, In case you had not realised, dismissing the entire *content* of your message includes dismissing "the substance of the argument itself", as well as the way that the substance was expressed. You may - or may not - recognise the phrase "the substance of the argument itself" from the definition of "ad hominem" that you provided.
Doubling down on the claim of an ad hominem - *definitely* the Flerf[1] approach!
[1] Of course, you would really be a Flat Marser rather than a Flat Earther but "Flars"? Actually, if the pronunciation seemed to imply that there was an 'e' on the end[2]
[2] There now, *that* is an attack on the (perceived) attributes of the individual, but it is also *not* an ad hominem because it was not used to bolster my argument but merely provided as an observational foot note.
Ok, so be it, that one in the corner.
We will have to be pleased to agree to disagree with specific regard to the validity of the defence offered for the nonsensical sentence ...."Never mind chatgpt, a drunken monkey flailing at a keyboard with a live haddock in each hand is better than that textual effluvium." .... in the paragraph ....
Which says that the *content* of your first message is textual effluvium and we could get better *content* by hiring a fish-obsessed simian. There was nothing in that which said anything at all about your character, your motives or any other attribute you may or may not possess, beyond the point that the *content* you produced was low quality, In case you had not realised, dismissing the entire *content* of your message includes dismissing "the substance of the argument itself", as well as the way that the substance was expressed. You may - or may not - recognise the phrase "the substance of the argument itself" from the definition of "ad hominem" that you provided.
* ..... Que sera, sera. C’est la vie.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2023
