My friend Bill, By definition, an ad hominem is an "attack" about a person's character or background, personality, and reason that, since this hypothetical person is dubious in character, others shouldn't give credence to this person's argument. There is one caveat: the ad hominems fallacy can be justifiable if a person's character is the topic being argued. I don't have to attack your character, Bill; you do a good enough job with some of the e-mails you' ve written. On the other hand, a straw man fallacy is committed when a person misrepresents the argument or theory of another person and then, on the basis of his or her misrepresentation, purports to refute the real argument or theory. Therefore, if you want to label a fallacy on my last missive then, if anything, you should have accused me of a straw man; but I wouldn't expect you to know the difference between these extremely fundamental fallacies. (Now, that's a very good example of an ad hominem). My friend just because one receives what could be construed as an automated response to a "Thank you" for supporting the metric system, doesn't mean that the effort was "pointless." Whether we (people like me who take the time to call and e-mail said companies) communicate with a marketing representative via e-mail or telephone doesn't mean that we've spoken to someone so low on the rung of importance-I think you labeled him or her as "BOTTOM"-that our message never reaches the upper rungs of said companies. I've spoken to several companies, economic professors, and family members, who live and breathe marketing and showed them your argument. They have all vehemently disagreed with you-vehemently, Bill. I don't know what your past experiences have been with telemarketing representatives, but if some of your experiences are to your dissatisfaction then you must avoid the fallacy of Hasty Inductive Generalization. A hasty generalization is when a person generalizes from a single anecdote or experience, or from a sample that is too small or too unrepresentative to support a conclusion. Without knowing which companies you've taken the time to call and/or write, I'm unable to unequivocally say that you have committed a hasty generalization; in addition, after reading everything that you've written over the past four months, I have yet to read one single anecdote that you have actually called or wrote a company, which labels their product with a metric measurement, with a "Thank you." One more thing regarding ad hominems: Equating a telemarketer with the word "BOTTOM" coupled with a tacitly denigrating phrase of "their only job is to send out canned replies," is not only inflammatory but also belies my argument that we should continue to call, write, and e-mail companies that have taken the effort to label their product with a metric measurement-even C and H Sugar. Your fellow metric friend, Darrick Priest ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Potts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 9:47 PM Subject: [USMA:12643] Re: Bill Roland again > Darrick: > > You have just provided yourself with a perfect example (your own) of what > argumentum ad hominem actually is. > > Never have I suggested that it's a waste of time to thank companies for > going metric. I have, however, suggested that it's waste of time to send > messages to the people at the BOTTOM of an organization AFTER it has become > evident that their only job is to send out canned replies. Such messages > don't reach those who make the decisions. > > I guess you missed my message (USMA:12401) about writing, via ordinary mail, > to the president and/or vice president of marketing of such companies. > > I will decide what I think, Darrick. And I'll thank you not to put words in > my mouth or presume, in even the remotest way, to know what my thoughts are. > You are quite obviously quite inept when it comes to reading minds. And you > just as obviously know nothing whatsoever about me. > > Bill Potts, CMS > Roseville, CA > http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > > Behalf Of Darrick Priest > > Sent: May 04, 2001 19:39 > > To: U.S. Metric Association > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [USMA:12642] Re: Bill Roland again > > > > > > ..and Bill Potts thinks that it's a waste of time to thank companies that > > are supporting the metric system with metric first or metric only labels. > > Do you now understand, Bill, why it's important! There are > > people out there > > who would love to undo all the work the USMA has accomplished. > > > > Hey Bill! Go to you bathroom and kitchen right now, take note of metric > > first and/or metric only labels, and countermand this other Bill with a > > "Thank you" to all those companies that are actually doing what > > we want and > > have asked them to do. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: kilopascal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 3:32 PM > > Subject: [USMA:12638] Re: Bill Roland again > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Thursday, 2001-05-03 10:53 > > > Subject: [USMA:12608] Bill Roland again > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I got this from the BWMA Battle Boards. > > > > Han > > > > > > > > > > > > Difference in distance measurements > > > > April 28 2001 at 11:45 PM Bill Roland > > > > > > > Liters are also nowhere to be found in the gasoline industry, > > all fuel is > > > in gallons. I > > > > have suggested to Coca-Cola that they convert the liter bottle to > > quarts, > > > but > > > > haven't heard back. I think it would be in Coke's best interest to do > > > something > > > > different than Pepsi, it would certainly get them more publicity. > > Anyway, > > > > that's all I've got for now. If you ever have any questions for an > > > American, > > > > send me an e-mail. Thanks. > > > > > > > > Bill Roland > > > > > > > > > > > > Respond to this message > > > > > > > > Author Reply > > > > BWMA > > > > > > > > Soft drinks downsizing May 2 2001, 5:56 PM > > > > > > > > Bill, > > > > > > > With reference to Coca Cola and Pepsi, you might want to look at the > > Great > > > > Metric Rip-Off page. There is a photograph of a US 12 floz Pepsi can > > > alongside > > > > a metric 330ml can. Needless to say, the metric can is > > smaller. American > > > > consumers need to be made aware that metric conversion will lead to > > > smaller > > > > quantities being sold for the same price as it has in > > Britain, so be on > > > your > > > > guard against metric downsizing by Pepsi and Cola. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Something is very nonsensical here. This Bill, wants coke to DOWNSIZE > > from > > > a litre size to a quart size (946 mL). But, the BWMA response makes no > > > mention of that bit of rip-off. But, when a metric product is > > down-sized, > > > it is a grievous sin. No wonder the governments and industries ignore > > them. > > > They speak with forked tongue. > > > > > > > > > Also, note that the BWMA is using the AMERICAN dating methods. > > Seems they > > > only scream about cultural destruction when and where it suits them. > > > > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
