#21
|
|||
|
|||
Which particular argument(s) are you talking about in particular?
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Paul F. Dietz wrote: wrote: One ad hominen + one ad hominem = two adhominems. No, since you have the causation reversed. The inference "you are a kook, therefore your argument is utterly ridiculous" would be ad hominem. The inference "your argument is utterly ridiculous, therefore you are a kook" is merely descriptive. The sad fact is that your arguments *are* transparent bull****. Everyone else reading this realizes that only a person with serious mental defects would be sticking to it. The obvious conclusion is that you're another usenet psychotic. Paul Mm, (this page seems to be working again, so let's repeat,) what argument (or which bit of what argument) are you talking about? Or maybe since you use plural, you can focus on one. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message .. . On 12 Dec 2004 08:45:09 -0800, in a place far, far away, "don findlay" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Christopher M. Jones wrote: For what it's worth, I never called you a crank, I called you "bat **** crazy". Please note the difference. Well, either way you're setting a bad example, going about calling people names. This is an abuse-free zone Aparrently this applies to all abuse, except "Self Abuse by DF". Who told you that? Ralph Nesbitt |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
SpaceShip Summer - New Blog; New Seti@Home team. | Derek Lyons | Policy | 0 | June 24th 04 06:37 PM |