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
This is your
friendly ad hominem notification. This is begin sent publicly with the first ad hominem
highlighted. I don't want to offend, but at the same time, David Miller
made it clear I need to take a bit
more active role in moderating the list.
Thank you for your
continued involvement in TruthTalk. I enjoy learning and conversing with you
all.
G-d bless you and
make your efforts profitable.
