Posted by Rational [trw] on November 03, 1999 at 06:14:13 {eZOTANvCI6YgCUWv3.1cm0FN8UzOHE}:
In Reply to: *****Response to AF: Part One posted by Friend on November 02, 1999 at 18:34:29:
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition, 1992 (Houghton Mifflin Company) defines "ad hominem" as:
appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives. [Latin, ad, to + hominem, accusative of homo, man.]Your accusation here, in fact, constitutes ad hominem, since you question my motives in discontinuing the fruitless and illogical argument you advanced in the "serious mistake" thread:
You characterize comments as obfuscation when you do not understand an issue or details leading to that understanding. Rather then see it through to the end you quit. You run away from the issue. Weasel’s run away.I remind you that Gedanken and AF evidently got just as tired of responding to your senseless arguments on that thread, and I am quite content to be in that company. Anyone can read the entire thread and see whether Gedanken, AF, and I made sense ... or you did.
Please do not request or anticipate another response to this (or the other) thread; I intend to use my time more wisely than dancing in circles with you to gratify your ego while you avoid admitting your own mistakes.
Rational
P.S. If I have misrepresented you with respect to the "ad hominem" question, then I apologize. I had Greg Stafford's "rebuttal" to AF in mind more than you when I posted to Cygnus, but, as I said, the post reminded me so much of your own obfuscation tactics and logic/language abuse that I may have confused the two of you.