> Still not ad-hominem. I attacked your idea, and explained why
> I thought it was ill-advised.
Along the way insinuating that someone would be daft, nutty, and
perverse to come up with the idea. What is amazing is that the attack
was based on lack of reading comprehension.
> That's beyond my control really. It wasn't ad hominem.
It was an attack in _my opinion_. The proper response might be to say,
"I'm sorry, I didn't understand the question, and I apologize for
attributing my incorrect conclusions to you and making statements about
the idea and the character of the person who generated them."
> It's a rough-and-tumble world, Tim. Do you think anybody
> cares very much?
I'm sure you realize the fallacy made by this statement.
> I limit my response basically to pointing out that, contrary
> to what you say, I did not engage in any ad hominem attack on you.
"Abusive: An Abusive Ad Hominem occurs when an attack on the character
or other irrelevant personal qualities of the opposition--such as
appearance--is offered as evidence against her position. Such attacks
are often effective distractions ("red herrings"), because the opponent
feels it necessary to defend herself, thus being distracted from the
topic of the debate."
I have expressed why it is indeed in my opinion an Abusive Ad Hominem
fallacy - as proven again by my perceived need to defend my character
rather than discuss the topic.
And as such, since this is my opinion, there is no point in arguing it.
-Tim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
