|
jt: I confess that I am at a loss to understand this
new way of defining "ad hominem" because it appears to me that
ANY disagreement at all is termed "ad
hominem" now.
This is my third warning as you well know Slade and
yet my conscience is clear so far as violating,
tearing down, or denigrating any other person. Does
this mean I am now forbidden to disagree with any idea or position set
forth by anyone else on TT without it being considered an ad hominem and
having to be MODERATED? If this is so then where does
the following exchange fall?
Lance wrote:
As to the 'Jt' segment of TT I
thank you for your answer. No suprises were contained therein. I'd like to go further but, can't fail to see the moderator
looking over my shoulder. 'Nuff said. To be seen as a Woman of the Word, as you
are, is all that one could hope for in anyone (female that is).
I asked Lance: Why does the
'moderator' trouble you now that it is Slade? I don't remember you
being concerned about much of anything when Charles Perry was moderating.
(which was so since Charles asked us to stop the 'one liners' which Lance is
famous for and was promptly ignored) and
Lance replied: "Judy: It was a joke. Smile from time to time;it won't hurt you. We must
also learn to smile at ourselves."
Now
this exchange is totally void of anything
other than sarcasm and Lance's personal opinion about my person which I
understand to be the crux of "ad hominem" and it makes a mockery of moderation
as a whole as opposed to what I wrote about the futility of Lance's
idea of promoting "contemporary scholars" in order to understand
the book of Romans.... jht
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 17:27:39 -0500 "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
|
- Re: [TruthTalk] Here is Part of the Problem Judy Taylor
- Re: [TruthTalk] Here is Part of the Problem David Miller
- RE: [TruthTalk] Here is Part of the Problem of Doing Th... Slade Henson
- RE: [TruthTalk] Here is Part of the Problem of Doing Th... ShieldsFamily

