On Monday, 2 February 2015 at 21:01:30 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote:
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?
I agree it was ad hominem, but I don't think Walter implied you
were dishonest, so much as *ignorant* (i.e. of what would
*really* happen if you just used the products as intended) -
which implication is still bad, if proven false, but not quite as
bad as calling you dishonest...
