Andre Lieven wrote:

>
> 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.

O.K. As I said. this is the wrong place.  I don't think that Doug saw it,
not as a question of having no answer, but rather that your arguments were
so full of "coloured" i.e. inflammatory language that he couldn't find
anything in them to answer.  I haven't been following the thread, and I get
a bit confused when there are so many quotes inside one another.  A
bulletin-board style format will avoid all that.  Because I am 16-18 hours
ahead of you in time, it will be a while before the site opens for business
for the week.

Your sig fascinates me.  It suggests that being a man is undesirable.  What
change does a man want for himself?  Why does he want to change?  I am not
suggesting that being a man is "better" than being a woman, but that a
mature, balanced man or woman will be happy to be the person he or she is.
The perception that those not on soc.men have of your group is that you are
NOT mature, that you are not reconciled to the world as it is.  I want to
get behind that perception if I can.  Dale carnegie said "Co-operate with
the inevitable."

Regards,

Doug.
--
ICQ Number 178748389. Registered Linux User No. 277548.
To know the road ahead, ask those coming back.
  - Chinese Proverb.



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/6/05 8:04:39 PM ---