On 11-Dec-07, at 7:13 PM, shiv sastry wrote:
Too late. You're hopping mad now :D and I am not playing your game.
Once
again, thanks but no thanks.
You may have heard of this new game. It's called bait the skeptic.
Here's how it works:
Person A, our hero, makes an exaggerated claim.
On Tuesday 11 Dec 2007 10:19 am, Kiran Jonnalagadda wrote:
So you're saying that you're too cheap to get a real survey done, but
expect to be taken seriously on facts you admit to making up yourself.
If that is not an ad homimen I don't know what is. However I will let it pass.
The reason I
At 2007-12-11 14:40:20 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you're saying that you're too cheap to get a real survey done,
but expect to be taken seriously on facts you admit to making up
yourself.
If that is not an ad homimen I don't know what is.
It's not ad hominem. If he'd said you're
On 11-Dec-07, at 2:40 PM, shiv sastry wrote:
Jace has just played the you farted game on me. Thanks, but no
thanks.
Thanks for the nice backdrop, Shiv. As I see it, I'm commenting on
the emperor's new clothes.
Where's your research data?
On Tuesday 11 Dec 2007 3:13 pm, Kiran Jonnalagadda wrote:
On 11-Dec-07, at 2:40 PM, shiv sastry wrote:
Jace has just played the you farted game on me. Thanks, but no
thanks.
Thanks for the nice backdrop, Shiv. As I see it, I'm commenting on
the emperor's new clothes.
Where's your
On Tuesday 11 Dec 2007 3:25 pm, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
It's not ad hominem. If he'd said you're a right-wing Hindu murderer,
so the results of your study are wrong, it would have been ad hominem.
But he's saying you have no data to substantiate your argument. That he
says you're cheap may
At 2007-12-11 19:21:51 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cut the boring rhetoric boss.
OK.
-- ams
