I give up, after many, many years!

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)"

Reference: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad%20hominem

-Le Chaud Lapin-

On May 12, 8:19*am, Larry Dighera wrote:

The argumentative personal attacks of which you speak are known as
'flames':http://www.eps.mcgill.ca/jargon/jargon.html#flame
They've been a phenomenon since the '60s. *I doubt that flames are
unique to airmen.
Are you an English Teacher . I take breaks for months at a time from
this list, and its not just because of the flames. *

Is the "car racing group" you mentioned a Usenet newsgroup?

Yup, its just like this one (Without the flames of course).

F. Baum wrote:
On May 11, 7:29 pm, Shirl wrote:

The thing I dont get about this list is how everything turns
argumentitive after about a dozen posts on a thread. I dont get

Totally disagree with that one FB. You are way off base here. Let me
start by saying that not _everything_ turns arg after about a dozen
posts -- if only there was one that did not.

On Mon, 12 May 2008 12:14:45 -0700 (PDT), "F. Baum"
wrote:

Partially agree here. At work I see the types who have to make sure
evryone at a party knows they are a pilot. They drive around town
running errands 3 hours before sign in IN their uniforms

FWIW, I know firefighters, mail carriers, a UPS driver, a FedEx driver
and a riverboat pilot that do the same.

In fact I know firefighters that wear something related to
firefighting, like a "DC Collapse Unit" t-shirt, EVERY day.

tman inv@lid wrote in :

F. Baum wrote:
On May 11, 7:29 pm, Shirl wrote:

The thing I dont get about this list is how everything turns
argumentitive after about a dozen posts on a thread. I dont get

Totally disagree with that one FB. You are way off base here. Let me
start by saying that not _everything_ turns arg after about a dozen
posts -- if only there was one that did not.


You're just trying to start an argument now.


Bertie

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

On Mon, 12 May 2008 05:53:30 -0700 (PDT), "F. Baum"
wrote in
:

I think some of this just has to do with aviation. I think it is the
type of personaliy that is attracted to flying.

The argumentative personal attacks of which you speak are known as
'flames': http://www.eps.mcgill.ca/jargon/jargon.html#flame
They've been a phenomenon since the '60s. I doubt that flames are
unique to airmen.

Is the "car racing group" you mentioned a Usenet newsgroup?



Why, trying to figure out if it comes under your jurisdction?


Bertie

B A R R Y wrote in
:

On Mon, 12 May 2008 12:14:45 -0700 (PDT), "F. Baum"
wrote:

Partially agree here. At work I see the types who have to make sure
evryone at a party knows they are a pilot. They drive around town
running errands 3 hours before sign in IN their uniforms

FWIW, I know firefighters, mail carriers, a UPS driver, a FedEx driver
and a riverboat pilot that do the same.


True. Some would be just too lazy to change, of course!

In fact I know firefighters that wear something related to
firefighting, like a "DC Collapse Unit" t-shirt, EVERY day.


That's a bit creepy, alright. If you've ever had the opportunity to have
to be consoled for some really major trauma, the feeling that comes from
having someone show you some genuine sympathy is intense, to say the
least. It's a physical reaction, obviously designed to encourage the
person to seek out the assistance of the tribe in hard times and it
feels as good as an orgasm, or what I might imagine a shot of an opiate
might feel like. I'm sure lots here have felt it. It's not hard to see
how it might become addictive, in fact. I've got a notion that it's
probably the reason that people with Munchausen and it's related
ailments do what they do.

Bertie

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)"

Reference:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad%20hominem


Nope, still not the same -as supported by the reference you gave. Ad
hominem is an abbreviation for Argumentum ad hominem and is the
antithesis of argumentum ad verecundium. That, my little bunny, is the
difference.

Cheers

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

More_Flaps wrote in
:

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.

Bertie