Doug Laidlaw (laidlaws{at}myaccess.com.au) writes:
> Doug Anderson wrote:
>
>> dg411{at}FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
>>
>>> Doug Anderson (ethelthelogremovethis{at}yahoo.com) writes:
>>> > dg411{at}FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
>>> >
>>> >> Doug Anderson (ethelthelogremovethis{at}yahoo.com) evades and
>>> >> ad homs:
>>> >
>>> > (snip rest of ravings)

And, that was the ad hom. The evasion of what facts were presented,
and the naming of said facts, unrefuted as they were, as being
" ravings ", which means " the ravings of the *person* I
dislike. "

Thats a reduction of debate, TO the *person*. Classic ad hom.

>>> Translation: " As I could not refute what he wrote, I made it go
>>> away, so that my failure to refute would be less noticable. "
>>
>> You haven't presented any arguments, so there is really nothing to
>> refute.
>
> Sorry guys, I wish that I hadn't started this.

Thats OK, only Mr. Anderson did that.

> No, "ad hominem" doesn't mean "unsupported
argument" but it is usually
> the resort of those who can't support their arguments.

Indeed, and that Mr. Anderson tried to label what he could NOT
debate/refute as " ravings " was the ad hom, as well as displaying
his inability to debate/refute the topic.

So, both were present, in this case.

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
                                    The Man Prayer, Red Green.


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/6/05 4:04:37 PM ---