john in this color.
----- Original Message -----To: [email protected];Sent: 3/9/2006 9:41:00 PMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Kinder Gentler God would not call names - pagan ?????Also, here is what I found at the home page for TT regarding ad hom:11. AVOID AD HOMINEM ARGUMENTS: Sometimes discussions get frustrating and a person might start attacking another list member rather than addressing the actual arguments being made. Avoid arguments that appeal to prejudice and emotions rather than to reason. Avoid attacking the character and motives of another list member rather than debating an issue on logical grounds.cd: No attack of character or motives here John. Is it an attack on your character to call you a Christian?If not why would it be wrong to call one who pratices Pagan belief a Pagan?I have no idea what you are talking about, Dean. I am giving you the official notion of "ad hom" as per TT home page. It is this and nothing more. David has already spoken on adn i will leave it at that.Please note that this statement , the official TT postiion on ad hominem arguments, does not speak to the "correctness" of the insult. Why has the Moderator decided to rewrite the rules?cd: Not rewriting the rules John-I am mearly offering a clear intrepretion of the Ad. Hom rule as to define it limits the above is too vague-and is broken on a regular basics.I do beleive you have added to the "ad hom" concept here on TT and I am not the only one.Or have I missed something, here?cd; Yes, you seem to be missing a lot of things John. Do you condider this statement Ad. Hom(ie....missing a lot of things)? By the above defination it is not but most would take it to be an insult. Hope you see my point and don't miss it again.No I do not "condider this statement Ad. Hom (ie .. missing a lot of things) " ---------------- SINCE I WAS TALKING ABOUT MY SELF !!!Will I miss something again ? Oh, you betcha !! Plan on it !!jd
