Thread: I give up, after many, many years!
View Single Post
  #66  
Old May 13th 08, 01:02 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,alt.usenet.kooks
Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]
external usenet poster
  
Posts: 3,735
Default I give up, after many, many years!
More_Flaps wrote in
:

On May 13, 7:17*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
More_Flaps wrote
innews:33a93fff-3e7f-4e94-b273-8e7e
:





On May 13, 6:16*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
More_Flaps wrote
innews:1d5a7be3-2bc1-461d-ac47-c4e9
:

On May 13, 10:37*am, Le Chaud Lapin
wrote:
On May 12, 5:11*pm, More_Flaps wrote:

On May 13, 9:51*am, Mxsmanic wrote:

More_Flaps writes:
I think you are MXing up an ad hominem with simple
personal attack.

Same thing.

Nope.

Not to nit-pick, but:

"Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun denoting
personal attacks, as in "Notwithstanding all the ad hominem,
Gingrich insists that he and Panetta can work together"
(Washington Post)"

Here you go, a better definition than the washington pist:

"Ad hominem arguments are always invalid in syllogistic logic,
since the truth value of premises is taken as given, and the
validity of a logical inference is independent of the person
making the inference. However, ad hominem arguments are rarely
presented as formal syllogisms, and their assessment lies in the
domain of informal logic and the theory of evidence.[1] The
theory of evidence depends to a large degree on assessments of
the credibility of witnesses, including eyewitness evidence and
expert witness evidence. Evidence that a purported eyewitness is
unreliable, or has a motive for lying, or that a purported
expert witness lacks the claimed expertise can play a major role
in making judgements from evidence. Argumentum ad hominem is the
inverse of argumentum ad verecundiam, in which the arguer bases
the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge or
position of the person asserting it. Hence, while an ad hominem
argument may make an assertion less compelling, by showing that
the person making the assertion does not have the authority,
knowledge or position they claim, or has made mistaken
assertions on similar topics in the past, it cannot provide an
infallible counterargument."

Cheers

The guy who wrote that is an asshole.

You know him/her?

Cheers

I'm a pearl before swine..


Sorry, I thought you were being a "master troll". In any case, that
should be an opal before bunyi.

I was! It's a fukkin joke!


Bertie