Am Mon, 02 Feb 2015 12:39:28 -0500 schrieb Steven Schveighoffer <schvei...@yahoo.com>:
> On 2/2/15 12:06 PM, Johannes Pfau wrote: > > Am Mon, 02 Feb 2015 02:49:48 -0800 > > schrieb Walter Bright <newshou...@digitalmars.com>: > > >> Please try it before deciding it does not work. > > > > I guess one ad hominem wasn't enough? > > Sorry, I'm not really vested in this discussion at all, but I don't > think you realize what ad hominem means. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem > > -Steve > Ad hominem literally means 'to the person'. en/wikipedia reduces that to character but other definitions (de/wikipedia) include all arguments against a person instead of to the content of the arguments. Walter implicitly doubted my qualification in his last reply by claiming I don't understand how intrinsics work. Here he basically said I didn't even try to run the code and just making up issues. He's essentially saying I'm dishonest. He didn't respond to the content of my arguments. This is clearly not an argument, it's an attack on my reputation. So how is this not ad hominem?
