shiv sastry wrote: [ on 07:08 PM 7/15/2007 ]
> >Thapar is a blithering idiot. Please don't inflict her upon us.
>
> What a curious statement. Care to expannd?
Gladly.
We all have our opinions on who is or is not an idiot.
For example
On Friday 13 Jul 2007 9:28 pm, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
> "Dr. Kalyan Raman voiced the common desire to 'trash Western
> Indological work done with motivation and instead rewrite Indian
> history.' [...] Truth, he felt, should be perceived in terms of
> our national heritage [...]"
>
> What a bloody idiot.
I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean to use ams' post as an
explanation for yours? On, perhaps, the principle that
I am merely displaying my own ability to act like an asshole. I dislike doing
this but not making such posts is a rule that everyone must follow.
I have some issues with this. Whether you agree with what ams said or
not, he was pointing to something specific (and germane to the
discussion) while calling Kalyanraman an idiot. You weren't, while
doing the same to Thapar.
Since you have expressed concern in the past ([1], [2] for example)
about _Argumentum Ad Hominem_ [3] allow me to point out that your
note is a perfect example of such - talking about the person and not
the argument. I do not believe this is what ams was doing. See, in
[3], the section titled "Usage".
[1] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silk-list/message/20349
[2] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silk-list/message/20359
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
--
((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
