Don's blog

Which particular argument(s) are you talking about in particular?

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.

"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