On 01/25/13 15:28, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > On 1/25/13 5:56 AM, Artur Skawina wrote: >> On 01/25/13 08:39, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: >>> On 1/25/13 2:12 AM, Artur Skawina wrote: >>>> On 01/24/13 21:13, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: >>>>> On 1/24/13 2:03 PM, Artur Skawina wrote: >>>>>> Trying to make arguments you don't like go away and silencing the >>>>>> messenger >>>>>> is your MO. >>>>> >>>>> Now that's what's called "ad hominem". >>>> >>>> No, it's not - it's just stating the facts; this was not the first such >>>> incident. >>> >>> Of course it is. The definition is simple enough, e.g. from Wikipedia: An >>> ad hominem (Latin for "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an >>> argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their >>> argument. >> >> Hmm, I can see how you could view this as an ad hominem, given that >> definition, > > How can that be seen as anything else? What definition do you have? > > You made a mistake under the heat of the argument. We all do. Don't try to > explain how actually you didn't. The right course is to casually apologize > and move on.
No. Please don't try to reinterpret what I said, this is the second time you did this. But, like i said, I can see that you view it like that. Fact is that that comment had absolutely nothing to do with the argument itself - I was only replying to your response, which was unacceptable. So, yes, I am talking about what you did, but that does not automatically mean it's an ad hominem, otherwise any critical comment about how the conversation is handled by the other side would be. I did make that comment too generic, and for that I'll apologize - I really should have said that /it happens/, and not used a figure of speech that can reasonably be misunderstood. I should have reread and caught that, I'm sorry. I'm still saying that these types of responses, when uncalled for (at least I didn't say 'in a well defined language..."), but caused only by your dislike of the argument or form thereof, are inappropriate. > I kept the sentence that I had a reply for. The rest I understood and agreed > with. It contained examples showing how all '()' could be omitted within ufcs chains, except the last pair. That would be a reasonable compromise, make code concise and unambiguous to read, but I guess you don't agree that doing it like that would be enough. artur
