From the American Heritage dictionary:
As the principal meaning of the preposition ad suggests, the homo of ad hominem was originally the person to whom an argument was addressed, not its subject. The phrase denoted an argument designed to appeal to the listener's emotions rather than to
ument or assertion rather than the argument itself.
--
Do you see the difference?
David.
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 12:39
PM
Subject: Re: [Truth
John wrote:
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.php
--- if you must get more complicated.
How about we just get more thorough rather than complicated? The word
complicated has the implication that it cannot be understood by digging in
deeper. The word thorough implies that we
John,
I do not think we can separate the ad hominem from logic, John. All
discussion contains some form of logic, some form of argumentation,
especially when our goal is to present and support a point of view. In it's
simplist form the ad hominem argument is merely an appeal to emotion
-0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion
John wrote:
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.php
--- if you must get more complicated.
How about we just get more thorough rather than complicated? The word
"complicated" has the implication that it cannot be
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
... I was neither meaningless nor repetitive in my posted comments.
John,
Your statement above is a good start at resolving this issue. I think
your best defense would be to argue the point that your comment was not a
meaningless tautology, bringing in evidence to
ing. David believes that you can separate the words of an opponent from the character of the opponent without being guilty of ad hom. I do not.
JD-Original Message-From: Charles Perry Locke cpl2602@hotmail.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 06:15:30 -0700Subject: Re: [Tru
]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 06:27:04 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... I was neither meaningless nor repetitive in my posted comments.John, Your statement above is a good start at resolving this issue. I think your best defense would
This is really interesting JD.
How is it that noone believes the same of
God?
When it comes to God - you say His Words are doctrine
and He is something other
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 09:41:21 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Perry, do you understand that such a defense wouldarrive at
the words of an opponent
from the character of the opponent without being guilty of ad hom.I do
not.
JD
-Original Message-
From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 06:15:30 -0700
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion
John
Sorry, there will be no resolution as stated by JD in another POST, he
sees others as his OPPONENTS
Game Set Match...
--- Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
... I was neither meaningless nor repetitive in my posted
comments.
John,
Your statement
not.
JD
-Original Message-
From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 06:15:30 -0700
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion
John,
I do not think we can separate the ad hominem from logic, John.
All
.
Grace to You
JD
-Original Message-
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 04:46:51 -0400
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion
John wrote:
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.php
--- if you
n separate the words of an opponent from the character of the opponent without being guilty of ad hom. I do not.JD-Original Message-From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 06:15:30 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussionJoh
than" His words -- but He is something IN ADDITION to His words.
Jd
-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 09:44:13 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion
This
Now thats another ad hom for
JD. Still zero for DM. iz
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005
7:14 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
ad-hominem discussion
Absolutly
nt: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 11:11:35 -0500Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion
Now that?s another ad hom for JD. Still zero for DM. iz
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 7:14 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.inn
One of the best discussions I have read on ad-hominem is on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Hominem.
Perry
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 20:56:11 -0400
Jul 2005 21:54:43 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion
One of the best discussions I have read on ad-hominem is on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Hominem.PerryFrom: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgS
cal charge of "meaningless tautology."
JD-Original Message-From: Charles Perry Locke cpl2602@hotmail.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 21:54:43 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion
One of the best discussions I have read on ad-hominem is on http://e
David Miller wrote:
I quoted you exactly as you wrote it
John wrote:
The very next sentence is EXACTLY what I said.
John wrote:
I wrote: Knowing you are right in some esoteric way
is a fantasy of the first order.
David Miller wrote:
That is exactly how I quoted you John.
Go back and
John wrote:
... Christ took the curse of the Law away
... If righteousness came by the Law,
then Christ died in vain, David.
... to be justified by Law is to be fallen from grace.
...snip...
Enough, Bishop. You are preaching to the choir here. I agree with points
like these. Good -
I am totally different from you JD in many areas; in
fact at times I think the only thing we have in common is the
name of Jesus itself but withtotally different
concepts. Fancy me quoting from a Dake Bible and a Strongs
Concordance. Wow! That is major - while you
OTOHhave all those years of
-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]comTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]innglory.orgCc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]innglory.orgSent: Sun, 29 May 2005 05:24:16 -0400Subject: [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
I am totally different from you JD in many areas; in fact at times I think the only
myth (there is no
basis for this comment outside of subjectivity in terms of a
priori,radical philosophical dualism': (e.g.)'i,
individually, not as part of any school of thoughtoppose you for the sole
reason that my reading of reality is totallycorrect while and you can't
grasp its
TT archive address, anyone?
Jd
no--tell us about
them
thanks, Lance -
g
On Sat, 28 May 2005 06:56:05 -0400 "Lance Muir"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Gary:Have you read any of the following: The Tipping
Point, Blink (same author) or, Freakonomics?
||
http://www.mail-archive.com/truthtalk@mail.innglory.org/
On Sat, 28 May 2005 09:57:36 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
TT archive address, anyone?
Jd
John wrote:
You are a legalist, David.
Thank you. Nothing wrong with being a legalist. God is a legalist too.
Read the Torah and study why Jesus had to die for your sins.
John wrote:
Well meaning, of course.
Thank you.
John wrote:
As such, there is no way of convicting you of your
Oh No! Are we back to the worship and follow Bob
Dylan groupie club? I've been busy
with house guests and am looking for something
substantial. jt
On Sat, 28 May 2005 06:56:05 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Gary:Have you read any of the following: The
Tipping Point, Blink
Who wrote God's Law - respect for which in John's eyes
turns one into a legalist?
This in spite of the fact that God Himself says that
for those who turn away from hearing
His Law, even their prayer is abomination. Guess
some folk only accept the parts of scripture
that they agree with and
If you want substantial then, write privately to
David and Christine.
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: May 28, 2005 11:29
Subject: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem
arguments
Oh
Why should I have to do that - after all this is a
Truth Talk List is it not? I understand Truth to be a person
with a name other thanDylan. Killing with
self-confidence after poisoning with words may be a familiar
happening on TT but it is something for which we should
repent rather than
@mail.innglory.org
Sent: May 28, 2005 12:40
Subject: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem
arguments
Why should I have to do that - after all this is a
Truth Talk List is it not? I understand Truth to be a
person
with a name other thanDylan. Killing with
self-confidence after
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: May 28, 2005 12:40
Subject: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem
arguments
Why should I have to do that - after all this is a
Truth Talk List is it not
:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: May 28, 2005 12:56
Subject: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem
arguments
That may be so Lance and there are all kinds of
creative and imaginative ppl out there, enough to wear anyone
out
Lance Muir wrote:
Gary is, at present and IMO, one of
the more perceptive, creative, literary, imaginative writers on TT.
Others trail far behind. You've never understood him or, what he's
doing.
I can identify with that last line.
Terry
Word is, Terry, that he's also a gun totin',
tabaccee chewin' good ol' boy when off TT.
- Original Message -
From:
Terry Clifton
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: May 28, 2005 14:25
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad
hominem arguments
Lance Muir
Lance,
I will not argue with you on Gary's credentials as you have stated them.
But, I have rarely seen a post of his that I have understood. People, in
general, don't think and communicate like Gary, so much of the time it
sounds to me like he is speaking a foreign language. His style of
Rollin Stones Magazine?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Perry Locke
Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2005 12:52 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
Lance,
I will not argue with you
Lance Muir wrote:
Word is, Terry, that he's also a gun
totin', tabaccee chewin' good ol' boy when off TT.
=
If he chews, he is probably a ball player, and you know how THEY are.
:-)
-Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]orgTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]innglory.orgSent: Sat, 28 May 2005 10:53:28 -0400Subject: Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
John wrote:
You are a legalist, David.
Thank you. Nothing wrong with being a legalist. God
On Sat, 28 May 2005 18:04:47 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:John
wrote:You are a legalist, David.
David wrote: Thank you. Nothing wrong with being a legalist.
God is a legalist too. Read the Torah and study why Jesus had to die for
your sins.
John responds: There can be no argument that
..Now there's spiritual warfare and flesh and blood
breaking down.Ya either got faith or ya got unbelief and there ain't no
neutral ground.The enemy is subtle, how be it we are so deceivedWhen the
truth's in our hearts and we still don't believe?..My so-called friends
have fallen under a
John wrote: As such, there is no way of convicting you of your complicity apart from your willingness to stop with the game and cast the beam from your eye.You misunderstand. I am not playing any game.
Of course you are - at my expense -- but hey, the tickets are free. David Miller wrote: I
evidence suggests
DavidM's into forgery--for what purpose?
On Sat, 28 May 2005 19:41:22 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John wrote: As such, there is no way of convicting you of
your complicity apart from your willingness to stop with the
game and cast the beam from your
28 May 2005 17:42:09 -0600Subject: Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
evidence suggests DavidM's into forgery--for what purpose?
On Sat, 28 May 2005 19:41:22 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John wrote: As such, there is no way of convicting you of your complicity apart from your
good question; ftr,
tt evidence suggestsparallelism betw his hermeneutic and (e.g.) jt's;
the/irbed rockis philosophical while the Bible is
evaluated(conformed to) dualistic bias which yields a religious
ideology..biblical theologyhas no priority with them, no native
respectgiven to it for
Meaningless religious mumbo jumbo Gary; I don't have
any such"hermeneutic" in fact I totally reject theGk god Hermes along with the dualistic philosophy of Plato that
you haveaccused me of endlessly. If you would follow hard after God and
seek Him with your whole heart rather than give Him
TECTED]comTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]innglory.orgCc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]innglory.orgSent: Sun, 29 May 2005 00:43:11 -0400Subject: Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
Meaningless religious mumbo jumbo Gary; I don't have any such"hermeneutic" in fact I totally reject theGk god Hermes along
John wrote:
... Christ took the curse of the Law away
... If righteousness came by the Law,
then Christ died in vain, David.
... to be justified by Law is to be fallen from grace.
...snip...
Enough, Bishop. You are preaching to the choir here. I agree with points
like these. My point was
Izzy wrote:
Calling DM nuts is an ad hom attack,
and entirely uncalled for.
Lance wrote:
IFF he is not nuts.
It is an ad hominem argument even if it were true. The truthfulness of the
statement does not matter. What matters is whether he is speaking to the
man or addressing the point
Subject: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
Izzy wrote:
Calling DM nuts is an ad hom attack,
and entirely uncalled for.
Lance wrote:
IFF he is not nuts.
It is an ad hominem argument even if it were true. The truthfulness of
the
statement does not matter. What matters is whether he
So wherewas the concernwhen Deegan called me a liar half a dozen times? -Original Message-From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 27 May 2005 12:24:35 -0400Subject: Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
Is there a moderator in the house? Izzy
These problems -- did they include Deegan and his use of the word "liar?" -Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 27 May 2005 11:48:53 -0400Subject: [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
Izzy wrote:
Calling DM nuts is an ad
John wrote:
So where was the concern when Deegan called
me a liar half a dozen times?
Just for the record, John, I wrote Gary privately about that and his
response was asking me to dig up the old posts for him. Then he posted
something to TruthTalk that basically said he wanted people to be
John wrote:
These problems -- did they include Deegan
and his use of the word liar?
Yes.
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know
how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
nal Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 27 May 2005 13:25:37 -0400Subject: Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
John wrote:
So where was the concern when Deegan called
me a liar half a dozen times?
Just for the record, John, I wrote
John wrote:
I will refrain from that word in the future.
It is not the word, per se. Calling people pretender or hypocrite is
worse, in my opinion. The real problem is turning the subject to being
about the person you are discussing an issue with rather than continuing the
dialogue.
Lance
That is true --hopefully you will come to see your complicity in the problem, as well.-Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 27 May 2005 14:07:22 -0400Subject: Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
John wrote:
I
John wrote:
That is true -- hopefully you will come to
see your complicity in the problem, as well.
I have always maintained that I have violated the no ad hominem rule also
and that I have to work hard at not doing it. One reason I like to have
someone other than myself moderate the list
On Fri, 27 May 2005 13:25:37 -0400 "David Miller"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:[Gary thinks] people[are] free tospeak however they
like to speak.
( he ain't the
only one)
..Across the street they've nailed the curtainsThey're getting
ready for the feastThe Phantom of the OperaA perfect
-Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 27 May 2005 17:12:47 -0400Subject: Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
John wrote:
That is true -- hopefully you will come to
see your complicity in the problem, as well.
I have
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Miller
Sent: Tuesday, 21 December, 2004 11.24
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [TruthTalk] ad hominem arguments
This is why we have a moderator. Ideally, we want the moderator to be the
only one to address
Slade wrote:
If a person is the problem, how does one say
the person is the problem without it being an
ad hominem comment?
Heck... even when one addresses the issue
outside of finger pointing, the ad hominem
accusation raises anyway!
This is why we have a moderator. Ideally, we want the
ad hominem adv.
Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason:
Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents'
motives.
Usage Note: As the
principal meaning of the preposition ad suggests, the homo of
ad hominem was originally the person to
Hello, David.
I would like to point out something here in this
thread.
A mistake made in this
threadwas taking an event that
occurred 2,000 years ago and removing the cultural significance behind it (replacing it with modernculture from the
USA). By doing so, the "threader" risks causing
Hi Slade:
During Jesus' earthly ministry God's peoplewere
all under the law (meaning the Old Covenant Law) and healing was the 'children's
bread' - children of the covenant. God is and has
always been a covenant God which meansthathe deals with His people
by way of covenant. The
Slade, Thanks for the perspective about clean/unclean. How do you think
that translates to today? Are we to cast the bread of the word out to
anyone/everyone? Or was that just for Jesus to discriminate? Izzy
Was Yeshua calling the woman a
dog?No. Please note she was no
To all:
This post focuses much on the personalities of Chris and myself. I
apologize in advance if it is boring to many of you. Just hit the
delete key before proceeding if you don't have time for this. I simply
feel that I must at least give an effort to communicate with Chris,
especially
\o/ !HALALU Yah!
\o/
Greetings in the Matchless Name of
YahShua !
Y'all have such great difficulty even knowing what "ad hominem" is.
Y'all identify "name calling" as "ad hominem" ... 'tain't necessarily so.
Y'all identify "calling a spade a spade" as "ad hominem" ... t'ain't never
Dogs have been considered in the same manner as by my African brother going back into
antiquity. It is actually a strong precept from ScriptureA mother in Scripture
had a daughter possessed by a demon. The mother sought YahShua to cast out the demon.
Wouldn't you think that The Saviour
LORD)
Chris
Barr
a servant of
YHVH
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 05/13/2004 12:46 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] "ad
hominem"?
Got to be careful not to add meaning that was
never intended here and at the same time denigrate man's best friend :).
I'm neither in nor from Arkansas. Not that it matters ... you're talking to me about
backwoods health care folk tales and you want to denigrate Arkansas! ROTFLMHO!!!
jt: I'm not denigrating anything, just saying that your way is the cultural norm in
that State. Could be wrong about where
Chris wrote:
Y'all have such great difficulty even knowing
what ad hominem is. Y'all identify name
calling as ad hominem ... 'tain't necessarily
so. Y'all identify calling a spade a spade as
ad hominem ... t'ain't never so.
Whether or not Jesus called people names is not the issue
Chris wrote:
Truth, Adonay, yet bitches eat of the crumbs
which fall from their masters' table.
Was that an ad hominem from The Saviour? No.
Was that an insult from The Saviour. Yes, and
one of a very degrading nature.
Apparently I missed this one but you've done it again. I'd throw out
Note:
Another point I forgot to make - this women got some crumbs and we who are God's
Covenant people through Christ are not even getting that these days. Anytime you've
got to depend on food additives etc. you're not walking in Covenant blessings. In fact
you're no better off than the world
ject: RE: [TruthTalk] "ad
hominem"?
Chris wrote: Y'all have
such great difficulty even knowing what "ad hominem" is.
Y'all identify "name calling" as "ad hominem" ... 'tain't
necessarily so. Y'all identify "calling a spade a spade&qu
Chris wrote:
An ad hominem argument is one where the presenter
is addressed rather than the message.
Joe: 1 + 1 = 3
John: Joe is an idiot.
THAT is ad hominem.
If John responded with the mathematical theorem that
exposes the error of Joe's statement and thereby reveals
Joe to be
\o/ !HALALU Yah!
\o/
Greetings in the Matchless Name of
YahShua !
I have seen no evidence at all on this
forum that any here would recognize an 'ad hominem' if one walked right up and
introduced itself.
An ad hominem argument is one where the
presenter is addressed rather than the
Izzy,
it would be nice if you
would take a lesson out of your own book IOW practice what you preach. I've been
giving you some space in not responding to your messages but you have really
gone over the top here.
Where is yourkind
and tender heart in any of this? You really need to let God
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: April 12, 2004 09:04
Subject: [TruthTalk] Ad-hominem attacks
was Christian Perfection
Izzy,
it would be nice if
you would take a lesson out of your own book IOW practice what you preach.
I've been giving you some space in not responding to you
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
Blaine,
Yes. Either that, or you both are extremely naive. For example, DavidH
said that he believes non-Mormons can go to heaven. I feel confident that he
knows that Christians believe there is one place called heaven, and LDS
believe there are three. He did
If you did post that prior to your stament to Judy that non-beleivers can go
to heaven, then I missed it, and in that case apologize for saying you did
not explain it.
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ad hominem rule
Date
Perry wrote: I do not want Christians who do not know the LDS
meanings to be mislead into thinking that the Mormons think
or believe the same way Christians do. Call me protective, but I
feel it is my duty, if I know that someone is being mislead
by words, to correct that. You
the
whole story.
Perry
From: Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TT [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [TruthTalk] ad hominem rule
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:09:04 -0700
Perry wrote:I do not want Christians who
do not know the LDS meanings to be mislead into thinking
Blaine wrote to Perry:
Are you saying either DaveH or I deliberately mislead?
You seem to be implying this in some of your posts,
and particularly this one.
Blaine, if it is ok with you and Perry, I would like to extend a little
latitude about the ad hominem rule to explore this idea a
, January 27, 2004 12:57 PM
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] ad hominem rule
Blaine,
Yes. Either that, or you both are extremely naive. For example, DavidH
said that he believes non-Mormons can go to heaven. I feel confident that
he
knows that Christians believe there is one place called heaven
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ad hominem rule
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 13:58:21 -0700
Blaine: Hmm, I understand what you are saying Perry, and I sense your
frustration. Maybe we have really been throwing you guys some curves, it
sounds like. LOLBut, we do not deliberately mislead, and that is my
ROTFLOL!
Ican see it now.
If the LDS were deliberately using words with double meanings would they when questioned about it, turn around and say:
"OK we fess up we are using SUBTERFUGE"
For Blaine, attacking false doctrine is comparable to a "personal attack"
In general, I have foundLDS to be
evel, or as the Lord would say, grace for grace.- Original Message - From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 12:57 PMSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] ad hominem
rule Blaine, Yes. Either that, or you both are extreme
- Original Message -
From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 1:31
PM
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] ad hominem
rule
Blaine wrote to Perry: Are
you saying either DaveH or I deliberately mislead? You seem
to b
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 1:31 PM
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] ad hominem rule
Blaine wrote to Perry: Are you saying either DaveH or I deliberately mislead? You seem to be implying this in some of your posts, and particularly this one. Blaine, if it is ok with you an
] On Behalf Of Slade Henson
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2003 1:27
AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ad
hominem remarks
Thank you,
Brother... and Shalom!
-- slade
Do not hit the REPLY button when responding to this
email. Please email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
directly. My
Marlin, liars go to hell. I am calling you a liar. I did not accuse you of being a Hitler lover. You see to be uneducated. You didn't seem to know much about him. You refused to take a stand against him and wrote things about him. You were given many chances to rebuke Hitler and you would not.
Izzy, with all due respect. You are blinded to your double standard. If someone is in favor of Saturday worship, even to the point of requiring it in order to be in right standing with God, you see no problem in how they write.
But if one strands for the Biblical view against Judaizers, then you
The following are examples of ad hominem arguments which violate the no
ad hominem rule that TruthTalk has:
Glenn wrote:
You quoted Scripture with the same intent Satan quoted it. To make your
point of your theology. In other words, as I understand you, you hide
behind proof texting. I used to
-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March
23, 2003 7:10 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ad
hominem remarks
Marlin, liars go to hell. I am calling you a
liar. I did not accuse you
Dear Slade,
Long before you came on board, I dealt with the same
incoherence. Glen was accusing me of being a judaiser who supports Hitler
before he left. Go figure. Ad
hominemremarks andname calling come from those who lack proof for
their claims. The practice ofplacing words in the
PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, 23 March, 2003 00:50
Subject: [TruthTalk] Ad hominem
remarks
Dear Slade,
Long before you came on board, I dealt with the same
incoherence. Glen was accusing me of being a judaiser who supports
Hitler before he left. Go figure. Ad
hominemremarks
100 matches
Mail list logo
