McGentrix wrote:I would also ask you to refute the article...are there lies? Or is it that you just don't like what is said and therefore it must be bad?
Apparently, McG is so mad at me that she won't read what i write. She also, apparently, didn't feel it necessary to read what Ma posted. The article Ma posted refutes Ruddy point by point, and does so
without ad hominem attack. I reviewed both Ruddy's specious contentions, pointing out several examples of ad hominem argumentation, including one which could reasonably have been characterized as libel--and then pointed out that the article posted by Ma refutes Ruddy without the scurrilous tactics of personal smear.
So, McG, you want
another refutation of the article? Or is it just that you don't like what was written and it must therefore be bad?