@georgeob1,
Quote:....The most interesting element of all this is her remarkable inability to take even a small dose of the crap she so profusely spits out.
It appears to me that you may suffer from a mild form of the same disorder as well.
So it's "disorders", now, if anyone has a different opinion to yours?
This is what I'd hoped would be my last word to you, George. (it’s near the top of the page.)
http://able2know.org/topic/176937-22
You might have noticed it ends on a conciliatory note. Silly me.
You might also have noticed I haven’t addressed any comment to you since.
But, the best laid plans & all that ......
Here's one more thing I'd like to say to you, George:
Ad Hominem
Quote:Description of Ad Hominem:
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of the person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting).
This type of "argument" has the following form:
4. Person A makes claim X.
5. Person B makes an attack on person A.
6. Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
OK, here’s just one example from this thread. You’d objected to the contribution of “foreigners” on this thread:
I said:
Quote:George, consider this:
What are something like Australian 1550 - 2000 Australian troops doing in Afghanistan, considering that we at not even a NATA member?
And considering that ordinary Australians have no beef what-so-ever with Afghanistan?
Do you think those troops would be there if the Australian government wasn't supporting US policy in Afghanistan, despite many Australians considering the war (which I consider an extended period of occupation) in that country is "unwinnable"?)
How dare you suggest that citizens of those countries which have supported misguided US policies in Afghanistan & Iraq somehow have less right to comment on "the war on terror" than Americans do.
Or anyone else, from any other country for that matter.
To which you responded:
Quote:
Unfortunately your typically shrill, hyperindignant response has nothing at all to do with my complaint. I don't question your right to be such a screeching harpie, I simply wish you would Take it somewhere else !
See what I mean?
I asked the same question again later & you responded with yet
more colourful insults. And now I see you are at it again today. You are affronted by my shrill attacks on Japanese whalers & Australian live sheep exporters. Crikey, I’ve been “shrill” about
them, too!
You know, I could flatter myself & actually believe that my contributions to this thread (& other comments, on other threads which you’ve been so offended by, apparently) were so overwhelmingly compelling that you were left speechless for an adequate response.
But you know & I know that isn’t true. There are plenty of considerably more compelling arguments than mine here, that you haven’t responded to
at all (reread some of Eorl's, or Robert’s, for example), say nothing of throwing some of your colourful stock ad homien attacks in the direction of the “offenders"?
But old habits die hard, yes?
Seriously, can’t you learn a few new tricks, George?
Just once, could you bring yourself to respond to the actual
arguments I & others have made?
That would make for a nice change.
It would make for a far better discussion, too.
