When you only question him, and nothing he asserts, you are indeed making your argument against him.
What other point did you make? On Nov 16, 12:21 pm, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > gaar, > > You defined it as "against the man". You have yet to show what I said > "against the man". period. > > On Nov 16, 1:38 pm, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > And as I have SHOWN, he did. > > > Have you made any type of rebuttal against what I have said an Ad > > Hominem is? > > > No. > > > Imagine that. > > > On Nov 16, 11:37 am, wncs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I have not read the entire initial post, nor do I even want to because > > > I don't want to get involved in this discussion other than as a > > > moderator in order to point out that Holly did NOT commit an ad > > > hominem attack. > > > > On Nov 16, 2:31 pm, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Again, you need to make an argument which would CAUSE the need for > > > > such an assessment. > > > > > You have not. > > > > > Had you addressed ANYTHING the man said, and shown it to be of flawed > > > > Psychiatric theory, then it would be well and good to question such > > > > things. > > > > > When your ONLY Rebuttal is about the man, you are in FACT commiting an > > > > Ad Hominem Attack. > > > > > Not my fault you simpletons don't understand such basic Debate > > > > tactics, I am just calling you on them. > > > > > Now, calling someone ignorant, after SHOWING their ignorance, is all > > > > well and good as well. It is not an Ad Hominem to point out the facts > > > > that support your conclussion, as I have done here with you and > > > > holly... > > > > > Now, again, care to address ANYTHING the man said, or just make this > > > > about how things are said, like holly does here day in and day out? > > > > > Are you going to become just another of the Loony Liberals here too > > > > wncs? > > > > > On Nov 16, 11:26 am, wncs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Read the title line of the original post: ..."concludes top > > > > > psychiatrist" is part of the post. Therefore, it is entirely within > > > > > Hollywood's or anyone else's rights to question any part of this post, > > > > > including the credentials of tis "top psychiatrist." No where did I > > > > > see Hollywood call him a name or anything of the sort. > > > > > As I said, if he called him an ignorant ass, then I could understand > > > > > your point. > > > > > > On Nov 16, 2:14 pm, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Asked and answered. > > > > > > > Care to discuss anything he has said, or just discuss him? > > > > > > > You understand that Ad Hominem is Latin for "against the man", > > > > > > right? > > > > > > > So when you concentrate your argument "against the man" that is > > > > > > presenting it, you are in fact commiting an Ad Hominem attack. > > > > > > > Your ignorance on the matter notwithstanding. > > > > > > > Now, had you questioned his "Theory" and SHOWN it to be flawed in a > > > > > > general psychiatrive sense, then it would be well and good to > > > > > > question > > > > > > his credentioals. When you make that your ONLY REBUTTAL, it is in > > > > > > FACT an Ad Hominem Attack. > > > > > > > On Nov 16, 11:10 am, wncs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > No, saying that his momma is a ho or that he is an ignorant ass > > > > > > > is a > > > > > > > personal attack. Asking for someone's credentials when it is > > > > > > > claimed > > > > > > > that they are a "top psychiatrist" and make sweeping > > > > > > > generalizations > > > > > > > about huge portions of the population is in no way an attack. > > > > > > > Inquiring minds want to know. > > > > > > > > On Nov 16, 2:05 pm, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Yes, holly... > > > > > > > > > When you ignore his argument to only try to discuss him, you > > > > > > > > are in > > > > > > > > fact commiting an Ad Hominem attack. > > > > > > > > > Your ignorance on the matter notwithstanding. > > > > > > > > > On Nov 16, 11:00 am, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Gaar, > > > > > > > > > > Your getting as hyper-sensitive as a pre-teen little girl. > > > > > > > > > Asking for > > > > > > > > > a man's credentials is an ATTACK? Ain't you the delicate one? > > > > > > > > > Get real lad. Anyone can play war-of-the-experts. > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 16, 12:43 pm, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 16, 7:43 am, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > WHO says Dr. Rossiter is a "top psychiatrist"? > > > > > > > > > > > Just like a Loony Liberal. > > > > > > > > > > > Instead of addressing ANYTHING the man asserts, attack him > > > > > > > > > > personally > > > > > > > > > > instead. > > > > > > > > > > > Same old shit, just another day with these Loony Liberals. > > > > > > > > > > > No surprise there.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
