Re: Updated AAH Definition

From: Jason Eshleman (jae_at_ucdavis.edu)
Date: 11/23/04 

Date: 23 Nov 2004 05:42:17 -0800

algis@RiverApes.com (Algis Kuliukas) wrote in message
>
> Rant, rant, ad hominem, rant. Hardly a scietific response that, Jason.

[snip]

> All you're doing here, again, is dishing out yet more ad hominems
> against me. And then you have the gall to accuse *me* of attacking the
> messenger.

[snip]

For one who begins this post with a call that all I'm really doing is
leveling ad homs, the irony of what occurs below is truly hilarious.

[snip]

> I mean, if you didn't understand *that* Jason, what kind of a
> scientist are you?

ad hominem attack.

[snip]
 
> Again, your argument looks pathetically weak here, jason. You look
> like you're avoiding the issue and, like a politician, chossing to
> answer a different question, one you think you have a prepared answer
> for.

ad hominem, comparing me to a politician. I am assuming that you have
a negative concept of politicians.

[snip]

> Yes, obviously, I'm assuming they went in the water sometimes. What
> did you think? Blimey, try to keep up.

ad hominem.
 
[snip]
 
> Funny. I was thinking exactly the same thing about you. Your six
> 'objections', when they were actually focused on the point and not
> some convenient interpretation of it, were about as sophisticated as I
> might expect from a nine year old.

ad hominem.
 
[snip]

I have been more than generous with you, Algis. You chose to
disregard criticism in favor of a series of attacks on the messenger.
You seem to choose to attack those most informed posters here when
they do offer criticism of your ideas and have shown next to zero
ability to address the criticism beyond saying that it's not of any
actual accord. That you seem to disregard criticism from those who
most resemble those individuals you're going to have to impress in
order to have your ideas have any impact at all doesn't appear to me
to do you any good at all. Continuing to think you're getting
somewhere because you can engage Marc isn't progress. Continuing to
believe that it's some prejudice shared by many against a concept is
neither accurate nor productive, beyond shadenfreude, I have no reason
to deal with you if you want to continue to believe such and behave as
such.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Mr Dawkins new book?
    ... I do disagree (there's a surprise!). ... not ad hominem, its germane. ... since I certainly haven't been insulting Peter. ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Why does creationism persist in the USA?
    ... first Ad hominem on me ... Ray's favorite logical fallacy. ... But it's a shame that even after his excessive use of it he ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ahhh... well we knew some belt-tightening had to come from somewhere
    ... Are the three of you done blowing each other off? ... This may be a new low in rsfc responses: snip everything from all the ... It's not ad hominem if it's true. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: OT BRIEF
    ... Leaving aside the barrage of ad hominem evaluations... ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: OT : Obamas Budget
    ... I said you never, ever, not once, suggest anything other than tax, spend ... He complains about "snip and rant", and then he snips and rants. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)