<Chuckle!> I did wonder if anyone would catch that.
And, yes, I did insult him deliberately and with malice. Also
deservedly, in my opinion, as he sees personal slights in the most
innocuous messages, and uses the most obnoxious pseudo intellectual
attacks on persons who disagree with him that outrightly insulting him
is fun. However, I have never insulted him until he has started playing
his "I am so superior to you" games. I do not think that it does a bit
of good, I don't think he is capable of understanding how his attitude
is perceived, so I guess I am pretty dumb.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------
Doug Brewer wrote:
On Mar 29, 2006, at 4:59 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Yes, here we go again. Ad hominem attacks are a signal to me that you
are out of ideas on how to respond meaningfully.
Godfrey
You may wish to seek out a definition of ad hominem. What Graywolf did
was insult you. There's a difference.
You, however, are guilty of an ad hominem attack when you said to Tom C.:
"With these statements, you demonstrate little study of Philosophy
or Science."
By pointing out what you perceived to be Tom's educational
deficiencies, you slipped from a discussion of the subject to a
suggestion that Tom was not qualified to make his assertions. That is a
textbook example of ad hominem, in that Tom's level of education has no
bearing on the veracity of his assertions.
Doug
who thinks "ad hominem" claims are thrown about entirely too often.
