I've thought about the ad hom issue as Chris put it, attack the idea not the person, this I have to say is something that I have attempted dozens of times, problem being that there really isn't any idea, just a continuation of a daydream that Tinker want's to keep pushing around. As of yet I haven't seen anyone else latch on to this Tinker idea and run with it while building a formidable thread in the process. So for ad hom I would actually have to have a viable idea to attack, which I don't so therefore it follows that I should attack the person who is continually pushing the non-idea and exposing it as the nonsense it is. Unfortunately that didn't go well and has caused this big tink stink. Secondary to that is the fact that I will have to at this point totally ignore all such posts and posters. I still don't see anything worthwhile coming from the tink, a review of posts will show that disruption is the prevailing wind.
On Aug 8, 3:03 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > On 8 Aug., 00:50, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > It seems to me that you are presenting the Idea that it is OK for one > > who is intellectually superior to ad hominem subversively when they > > cannot refute the ideas of the one they would be attacking with the > > intellectual superiority. > > 1.) The idea of intellectual superiority vs. inferiority sees to be an > issue for you, Tinker. What is your understanding of the term > "intellectual superiority"? > > 2.) "... to ad hominen ... when they cannot refute ... " It doesn't > have to be an "either/or" thing, it can also be an "and/as well as"! --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
