| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"sgeo" |
| Date: |
20 Jan 2006 06:19:59 PM |
| Object: |
ad hominem |
Please remember at all times to reply to a person's *content*, and not to
who the person might be. A reply like "take your medication" helps no-one.
If you don't want to spend energy construction a reply to trolls, don't
reply. The theists make points. We need to refute those points, not make
fun of the person, or even the way the points might be worded.
.
|
|
| User: "Bullet" |
|
| Title: Re: Ad hominem [summary] ping Denis Loubet |
02 Mar 2006 04:50:34 PM |
|
|
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:44075E0C.C2D242A4@Hovnanian.com...
Bullet wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:44066C11.3F443682@Hovnanian.com...
Bullet wrote:
You think it is not logical fallacy if what you say while attacking
the
other person is true?
You are mistaken. Even if your statements about your opponent were
true
it
is still the logical fallacy of changing the subject to divert from
the
issue genuinely under discussion to ANYTHING else.
See:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
Changing the Subject
Attacking the Person:
(1) the person's character is attacked
(2) the person's circumstances are noted
(3) the person does not practise what is preached
(and there are other forms of changing the subject)
Tell us more about the attacks that you believe are occurring.
Thanks for another excellent example of the fallacy of trying to change
the
subject!
No subject change at all.
Yes it would be. As I pointed out, and you snipped, the topic is the logical
fallacy of argument _ad hominem_ (a form of the fallacy of trying to change
the subject) IN GENERAL, not any particular case. Don't they teach informal
(ordinary language) logic to you Presentation Engineers? 8^)
http://www.designnews.com/article/CA179695.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Hovnanian P.E." |
|
| Title: Re: Ad hominem [summary] ping Denis Loubet |
02 Mar 2006 08:06:40 PM |
|
|
Bullet wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:44075E0C.C2D242A4@Hovnanian.com...
Bullet wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:44066C11.3F443682@Hovnanian.com...
Bullet wrote:
You think it is not logical fallacy if what you say while attacking
the
other person is true?
You are mistaken. Even if your statements about your opponent were
true
it
is still the logical fallacy of changing the subject to divert from
the
issue genuinely under discussion to ANYTHING else.
See:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
Changing the Subject
Attacking the Person:
(1) the person's character is attacked
(2) the person's circumstances are noted
(3) the person does not practise what is preached
(and there are other forms of changing the subject)
Tell us more about the attacks that you believe are occurring.
Thanks for another excellent example of the fallacy of trying to change
the
subject!
No subject change at all.
Yes it would be. As I pointed out, and you snipped, the topic is the logical
fallacy of argument _ad hominem_ (a form of the fallacy of trying to change
the subject) IN GENERAL, not any particular case. Don't they teach informal
(ordinary language) logic to you Presentation Engineers? 8^)
http://www.designnews.com/article/CA179695.html
Do you believe that people who are being illogical are attacking you
personally?
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bloody typical, they've gone back to metric without telling us.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bullet" |
|
| Title: Re: Ad hominem [summary] ping Denis Loubet |
03 Mar 2006 12:54:05 PM |
|
|
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:4407A4B0.BF032BDC@Hovnanian.com...
Bullet wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:44075E0C.C2D242A4@Hovnanian.com...
Bullet wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:44066C11.3F443682@Hovnanian.com...
Bullet wrote:
You think it is not logical fallacy if what you say while
attacking
the
other person is true?
You are mistaken. Even if your statements about your opponent
were
true
it
is still the logical fallacy of changing the subject to divert
from
the
issue genuinely under discussion to ANYTHING else.
See:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
Changing the Subject
Attacking the Person:
(1) the person's character is attacked
(2) the person's circumstances are noted
(3) the person does not practise what is preached
(and there are other forms of changing the subject)
Tell us more about the attacks that you believe are occurring.
Thanks for another excellent example of the fallacy of trying to
change
the
subject!
No subject change at all.
Yes it would be. As I pointed out, and you snipped, the topic is the
logical
fallacy of argument _ad hominem_ (a form of the fallacy of trying to
change
the subject) IN GENERAL, not any particular case. Don't they teach
informal
(ordinary language) logic to you Presentation Engineers? 8^)
http://www.designnews.com/article/CA179695.html
Do you believe ...
This is not about me, knucklehead. Why don't you stop trying to change the
subject? The topic is the logical fallacy of argument _ad hominem_ (a form
of the fallacy of trying to change the subject) IN GENERAL, not any
particular case. Don't they teach informal (ordinary language) logic to you
Presentation Engineers? 8^)
http://www.designnews.com/article/CA179695.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Ad hominem [summary] ping Denis Loubet |
04 Mar 2006 12:28:41 AM |
|
|
Bullet wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
Do you believe that people who are being illogical are attacking you
personally?
This is not about me, knucklehead. Why don't you stop trying to change the
subject? The topic is
The topic is you and your many failings, both logical and personal.
You keep trying to change the topic, but you and only you are interested
in whatever the heck you are blythering about this time. Nobody -- not a
single person except you -- wishes to discuss anything except your many
flaws. And that, queenie, is the definitive measure of what the topic
*really* is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Ad hominem [summary] ping Denis Loubet |
04 Mar 2006 05:07:23 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Bullet wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
Do you believe that people who are being illogical are attacking you
personally?
This is not about me, knucklehead. Why don't you stop trying to change the
subject? The topic is
The topic is you and your many failings, both logical and personal.
You keep trying to change the topic, but you and only you are interested
in whatever the heck you are blythering about this time. Nobody -- not a
single person except you -- wishes to discuss anything except your many
flaws. And that, queenie, is the definitive measure of what the topic
*really* is.
Spot on. Septic is all alone is his "world", generally known as planet
Skeptune. Communication with the planet is spotty at best; they seem
to be using some kind of spread-spectrum tuner there, with a garbler
added in; and the transmitter often gets completely stuck, as in this
case. :-)
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Ad hominem [summary] ping Denis Loubet |
04 Mar 2006 06:59:51 PM |
|
|
wrote...
me@privacy.net wrote...
Bullet wrote...
Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote...
Do you believe that people who are being illogical are attacking you
personally?
This is not about me, knucklehead. Why don't you stop trying to change the
subject? The topic is
The topic is you and your many failings, both logical and personal.
You keep trying to change the topic, but you and only you are interested
in whatever the heck you are blythering about this time. Nobody -- not a
single person except you -- wishes to discuss anything except your many
flaws. And that, queenie, is the definitive measure of what the topic
*really* is.
Spot on. Septic is all alone is his "world", generally known as planet
Skeptune. Communication with the planet is spotty at best; they seem
to be using some kind of spread-spectrum tuner there, with a garbler
added in; and the transmitter often gets completely stuck, as in this
case. :-)
In addition, he has a couple of stuck data lines and a few of his low-order
address lines are reversed.
He did, however, invent a new form of contraception. His personality.
I hear they made a stamp with Sepic's face on it. Didn't work out, though --
everybody spit on the wrong side.
Will Rogers never met Septic.
Septic gives assholes a bad name.
And, by definition ("that which everyone except Septic whishes to discuss"
and also "that which *including* Septic is discussing") is the topic of this
conversation.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Ad hominem [summary] ping Denis Loubet |
03 Mar 2006 07:30:08 PM |
|
|
Bullet wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:4407A4B0.BF032BDC@Hovnanian.com...
Bullet wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:44075E0C.C2D242A4@Hovnanian.com...
Bullet wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:44066C11.3F443682@Hovnanian.com...
Bullet wrote:
You think it is not logical fallacy if what you say while
attacking
the
other person is true?
You are mistaken. Even if your statements about your opponent
were
true
it
is still the logical fallacy of changing the subject to divert
from
the
issue genuinely under discussion to ANYTHING else.
See:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
Changing the Subject
Attacking the Person:
(1) the person's character is attacked
(2) the person's circumstances are noted
(3) the person does not practise what is preached
(and there are other forms of changing the subject)
Tell us more about the attacks that you believe are occurring.
Thanks for another excellent example of the fallacy of trying to
change
the
subject!
No subject change at all.
Yes it would be. As I pointed out, and you snipped, the topic is the
logical
fallacy of argument _ad hominem_ (a form of the fallacy of trying to
change
the subject) IN GENERAL, not any particular case. Don't they teach
informal
(ordinary language) logic to you Presentation Engineers? 8^)
http://www.designnews.com/article/CA179695.html
Do you believe ...
This is not about me
Yes it is, Septic. Two bags full.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Ad hominem [summary] ping Denis Loubet |
09 Mar 2006 08:01:00 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Septic wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:4407A4B0.BF032BDC@Hovnanian.com...
Septic wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:44075E0C.C2D242A4@Hovnanian.com...
Septic wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:44066C11.3F443682@Hovnanian.com...
Septic wrote:
You think it is not logical fallacy if what you say while
attacking
the
other person is true?
You are mistaken. Even if your statements about your opponent
were
true
it
is still the logical fallacy of changing the subject to divert
from
the
issue genuinely under discussion to ANYTHING else.
See:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
Changing the Subject
Attacking the Person:
(1) the person's character is attacked
(2) the person's circumstances are noted
(3) the person does not practise what is preached
(and there are other forms of changing the subject)
Tell us more about the attacks that you believe are occurring.
Thanks for another excellent example of the fallacy of trying to
change
the
subject!
No subject change at all.
Yes it would be. As I pointed out, and you snipped, the topic is the
logical
fallacy of argument _ad hominem_ (a form of the fallacy of trying to
change
the subject) IN GENERAL, not any particular case. Don't they teach
informal
(ordinary language) logic to you Presentation Engineers? 8^)
http://www.designnews.com/article/CA179695.html
Do you believe ...
This is not about me
Yes it is, Septic. Two bags full.
All about you, Septic. Heh.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Ad hominem [summary] ping Denis Loubet |
03 Mar 2006 04:26:18 PM |
|
|
In article <fMKdnSzD5YMzDZXZnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:4407A4B0.BF032BDC@Hovnanian.com...
Bullet wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:44075E0C.C2D242A4@Hovnanian.com...
Bullet wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:44066C11.3F443682@Hovnanian.com...
Bullet wrote:
You think it is not logical fallacy if what you say while
attacking
the
other person is true?
You are mistaken. Even if your statements about your opponent
were
true
it
is still the logical fallacy of changing the subject to divert
from
the
issue genuinely under discussion to ANYTHING else.
See:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
Changing the Subject
Attacking the Person:
(1) the person's character is attacked
(2) the person's circumstances are noted
(3) the person does not practise what is preached
(and there are other forms of changing the subject)
Tell us more about the attacks that you believe are occurring.
Thanks for another excellent example of the fallacy of trying to
change
the
subject!
No subject change at all.
Yes it would be. As I pointed out, and you snipped, the topic is the
logical
fallacy of argument _ad hominem_ (a form of the fallacy of trying to
change
the subject) IN GENERAL, not any particular case. Don't they teach
informal
(ordinary language) logic to you Presentation Engineers? 8^)
http://www.designnews.com/article/CA179695.html
Do you believe ...
This is not about me
It is exactly about Septic, aka Bullet, aka knucklehead, aka about a
hundred other aliases.
That Septic would like to misdirect attention elsewhere and does his
best to attain such misdirection does not persuade the many others who
are keeping this thread on point.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Ad hominem [summary] ping Denis Loubet |
04 Mar 2006 06:33:11 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <fMKdnSzD5YMzDZXZnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Septic" <b@nospam.net> wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:4407A4B0.BF032BDC@Hovnanian.com...
Septic wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:44075E0C.C2D242A4@Hovnanian.com...
Septic wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:44066C11.3F443682@Hovnanian.com...
Septic wrote:
You think it is not logical fallacy if what you say while
attacking
the
other person is true?
You are mistaken. Even if your statements about your opponent
were
true
it
is still the logical fallacy of changing the subject to divert
from
the
issue genuinely under discussion to ANYTHING else.
See:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
Changing the Subject
Attacking the Person:
(1) the person's character is attacked
(2) the person's circumstances are noted
(3) the person does not practise what is preached
(and there are other forms of changing the subject)
Tell us more about the attacks that you believe are occurring.
Thanks for another excellent example of the fallacy of trying to
change
the
subject!
No subject change at all.
Yes it would be. As I pointed out, and you snipped, the topic is the
logical
fallacy of argument _ad hominem_ (a form of the fallacy of trying to
change
the subject) IN GENERAL, not any particular case. Don't they teach
informal
(ordinary language) logic to you Presentation Engineers? 8^)
http://www.designnews.com/article/CA179695.html
Do you believe ...
This is not about me
It is exactly about Septic, aka Bullet, aka knucklehead, aka about a
hundred other aliases.
That Septic would like to misdirect attention elsewhere and does his
best to attain such misdirection does not persuade the many others who
are keeping this thread on point.
All precisely true, Virgil. Septic's behavior is the issue, especially
his diversionary behavior. :-)
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bullet" |
|
| Title: Re: Ad hominem [summary] ping Denis Loubet |
06 Mar 2006 01:21:30 PM |
|
|
Thanks to all on your side for continuing to supply this thread with all
those excellent examples of argument _ad hominem_ (attacking the person), a
form of the fallacy of diversion (changing the subject).
See:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
Changing the Subject
Attacking the Person:
(1) the person's character is attacked
(2) the person's circumstances are noted
(3) the person does not practise what is preached
(and there are other forms of changing the subject)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Ad hominem [summary] ping Denis Loubet |
06 Mar 2006 08:14:12 PM |
|
|
Bullet wrote:
Thanks
(Snip)
Are you still there? Go away, pest!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bullet" |
|
| Title: Re: Ad hominem [summary] ping Denis Loubet |
07 Mar 2006 01:47:37 PM |
|
|
<me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:120pr3nf243onf0@corp.supernews.com...
Bullet wrote:
Thanks
(Snip)
Are you
This is not about me, it is about argument _ad hominem_. Why don't you stop
trying to change the subject?
Thanks to all on your side for continuing to supply this thread with all
those excellent examples of argument _ad hominem_ (attacking the person), a
form of the fallacy of diversion (changing the subject).
See:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
Changing the Subject
Attacking the Person:
(1) the person's character is attacked
(2) the person's circumstances are noted
(3) the person does not practise what is preached
(and there are other forms of changing the subject)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Ad hominem [summary] ping Denis Loubet |
07 Mar 2006 09:07:41 PM |
|
|
Bullet wrote:
<me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:120pr3nf243onf0@corp.supernews.com...
Bullet wrote:
Thanks
Are you
This is not
Yes it is, sir. One bag full, Septic.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rich the Logicator" |
|
| Title: Re: Ad hominem [summary] ping Denis Loubet |
07 Mar 2006 10:11:59 PM |
|
|
Bullet wrote:
This is not about me, it is about argument _ad hominem_. Why don't you stop
trying to change the subject?
This is not about argument _ad hominem_, it is about you. Why don't you stop
trying to change the subject?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bullet" |
|
| Title: Re: Ad hominem [summary] ping Denis Loubet |
09 Mar 2006 07:33:37 PM |
|
|
"Rich the Logicator" <me@privacy.org> wrote in message
news:120sqa182hbj440@corp.supernews.com...
Bullet wrote:
This is not about me, it is about argument _ad hominem_. Why don't you
stop
trying to change the subject?
This is not about argument _ad hominem_
Read the subject line, knucklehead.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Septic is an idiot and an ***** |
10 Mar 2006 08:37:59 AM |
|
|
Bullet wrote:
"Rich the Logicator" <me@privacy.org> wrote in message
news:120sqa182hbj440@corp.supernews.com...
Bullet wrote:
This is not about me, it is about argument _ad hominem_.
Why don't you stop trying to change the subject?
This is not about argument _ad hominem_
Read the subject line, knucklehead.
Nice to see that you now think that the subject of a thread is defined
by the subject line. According to your own logic, the subject under
discussion is now you being an idiot and an *****.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Ad hominem [summary] ping Denis Loubet |
09 Mar 2006 11:39:28 PM |
|
|
In article <9NGdndWkJdnVSo3ZRVn-iw@comcast.com>,
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote:
"Rich the Logicator" <me@privacy.org> wrote in message
news:120sqa182hbj440@corp.supernews.com...
Septic wrote:
This is not about me, it is about argument _ad hominem_. Why don't you
stop
trying to change the subject?
This is not about argument _ad hominem_
knucklehead.
It is about Septic committing the fallacy of Argumentum ad Hominem.
Which he has just done again.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Septic and his fallacies |
09 Mar 2006 08:10:42 PM |
|
|
Septic wrote:
"Rich the Logicator" <me@privacy.org> wrote in message
news:120sqa182hbj440@corp.supernews.com...
Septic wrote:
This is not about me, it is about argument _ad hominem_. Why don't you
stop
trying to change the subject?
This is not about argument _ad hominem_
Read the subject line,
That's your defense, Septic?? OK, now you read the subject line. Doh.
It is now about you and your fallacies. Happy now?
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Ad hominem [summary] ping Denis Loubet |
07 Mar 2006 11:26:59 PM |
|
|
In article <cZ-dna9A9NeofpDZnZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote:
<me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:120pr3nf243onf0@corp.supernews.com...
Bullet wrote:
Thanks
(Snip)
Are you
This is not about me
Want to bet!
As long as there are more of us sane folk here than Septic, it is about
Septic!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Ad hominem [summary] ping Denis Loubet |
06 Mar 2006 03:09:08 PM |
|
|
In article <tumdnYxCa70FFpHZRVn-uA@comcast.com>,
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote:
Thanks to all on your side for continuing to supply this thread with all
those excellent examples of argument _ad hominem_ (attacking the person), a
form of the fallacy of diversion (changing the subject).
Actually, Septic, aka "bullet", has, in the matter of Argumentum ad
Hominem production, single-handedly out produced all of his critics
combined.
Septic's single-minded persistence at this folly is truly amazing.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Ad hominem [summary] ping Denis Loubet |
07 Mar 2006 09:16:05 PM |
|
|
Septic wrote:
Thanks
Thanks to you, Septic, for demonstrating yet once again the fact that
you remain the completely fallacious, mendacious, and discredited old
idiot fool liar of alt.atheism, as always. Ho hum.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Hovnanian P.E." |
|
| Title: Re: Ad hominem [summary] ping Denis Loubet |
02 Mar 2006 08:01:30 PM |
|
|
Bullet wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:44075E0C.C2D242A4@Hovnanian.com...
Bullet wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:44066C11.3F443682@Hovnanian.com...
Bullet wrote:
You think it is not logical fallacy if what you say while attacking
the
other person is true?
You are mistaken. Even if your statements about your opponent were
true
it
is still the logical fallacy of changing the subject to divert from
the
issue genuinely under discussion to ANYTHING else.
See:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
Changing the Subject
Attacking the Person:
(1) the person's character is attacked
(2) the person's circumstances are noted
(3) the person does not practise what is preached
(and there are other forms of changing the subject)
Tell us more about the attacks that you believe are occurring.
Thanks for another excellent example of the fallacy of trying to change
the
subject!
No subject change at all.
Yes it would be. As I pointed out, and you snipped, the topic is the logical
fallacy of argument _ad hominem_ (a form of the fallacy of trying to change
the subject) IN GENERAL, not any particular case. Don't they teach informal
(ordinary language) logic to you Presentation Engineers? 8^)
http://www.designnews.com/article/CA179695.html
Do you often feel that people are attacking you by changing the subject?
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
David Bradley (IBM programmer who created the Ctrl-Alt-Del reboot
keyboard sequence), "I may have invented it, but Bill made it famous."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bullet" |
|
| Title: Re: Ad hominem [summary] ping Denis Loubet |
03 Mar 2006 12:52:56 PM |
|
|
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:4407A37A.47EDCE64@Hovnanian.com...
Bullet wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:44075E0C.C2D242A4@Hovnanian.com...
Bullet wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:44066C11.3F443682@Hovnanian.com...
Bullet wrote:
You think it is not logical fallacy if what you say while
attacking
the
other person is true?
You are mistaken. Even if your statements about your opponent
were
true
it
is still the logical fallacy of changing the subject to divert
from
the
issue genuinely under discussion to ANYTHING else.
See:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
Changing the Subject
Attacking the Person:
(1) the person's character is attacked
(2) the person's circumstances are noted
(3) the person does not practise what is preached
(and there are other forms of changing the subject)
Tell us more about the attacks that you believe are occurring.
Thanks for another excellent example of the fallacy of trying to
change
the
subject!
No subject change at all.
Yes it would be. As I pointed out, and you snipped, the topic is the
logical
fallacy of argument _ad hominem_ (a form of the fallacy of trying to
change
the subject) IN GENERAL, not any particular case. Don't they teach
informal
(ordinary language) logic to you Presentation Engineers? 8^)
http://www.designnews.com/article/CA179695.html
Do you often feel ...
This is not about me, knucklehead. Why don't you stop trying to change the
subject? The topic is the logical fallacy of argument _ad hominem_ (a form
of the fallacy of trying to change the subject) IN GENERAL, not any
particular case. Don't they teach informal (ordinary language) logic to you
Presentation Engineers? 8^)
http://www.designnews.com/article/CA179695.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Hovnanian P.E." |
|
| Title: Re: Ad hominem [summary] ping Denis Loubet |
03 Mar 2006 07:45:25 PM |
|
|
Bullet wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:4407A37A.47EDCE64@Hovnanian.com...
Bullet wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:44075E0C.C2D242A4@Hovnanian.com...
Bullet wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:44066C11.3F443682@Hovnanian.com...
Bullet wrote:
You think it is not logical fallacy if what you say while
attacking
the
other person is true?
You are mistaken. Even if your statements about your opponent
were
true
it
is still the logical fallacy of changing the subject to divert
from
the
issue genuinely under discussion to ANYTHING else.
See:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
Changing the Subject
Attacking the Person:
(1) the person's character is attacked
(2) the person's circumstances are noted
(3) the person does not practise what is preached
(and there are other forms of changing the subject)
Tell us more about the attacks that you believe are occurring.
Thanks for another excellent example of the fallacy of trying to
change
the
subject!
No subject change at all.
Yes it would be. As I pointed out, and you snipped, the topic is the
logical
fallacy of argument _ad hominem_ (a form of the fallacy of trying to
change
the subject) IN GENERAL, not any particular case. Don't they teach
informal
(ordinary language) logic to you Presentation Engineers? 8^)
http://www.designnews.com/article/CA179695.html
Do you often feel ...
This is not about me, knucklehead. Why don't you stop trying to change the
subject? The topic is the logical fallacy of argument _ad hominem_ (a form
of the fallacy of trying to change the subject) IN GENERAL, not any
particular case. Don't they teach informal (ordinary language) logic to you
Presentation Engineers? 8^)
http://www.designnews.com/article/CA179695.html
So, do you think that people are talking about you often? Do you
perceive this as an attack? How long have you had these feelings?
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the
means he uses to frighten you. -- Eric Hoffer
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Ad hominem [summary] ping Denis Loubet |
03 Mar 2006 07:28:20 PM |
|
|
Bullet wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:4407A37A.47EDCE64@Hovnanian.com...
Bullet wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:44075E0C.C2D242A4@Hovnanian.com...
Bullet wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:44066C11.3F443682@Hovnanian.com...
Bullet wrote:
You think it is not logical fallacy if what you say while
attacking
the
other person is true?
You are mistaken. Even if your statements about your opponent
were
true
it
is still the logical fallacy of changing the subject to divert
from
the
issue genuinely under discussion to ANYTHING else.
See:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
Changing the Subject
Attacking the Person:
(1) the person's character is attacked
(2) the person's circumstances are noted
(3) the person does not practise what is preached
(and there are other forms of changing the subject)
Tell us more about the attacks that you believe are occurring.
Thanks for another excellent example of the fallacy of trying to
change
the
subject!
No subject change at all.
Yes it would be. As I pointed out, and you snipped, the topic is the
logical
fallacy of argument _ad hominem_ (a form of the fallacy of trying to
change
the subject) IN GENERAL, not any particular case. Don't they teach
informal
(ordinary language) logic to you Presentation Engineers? 8^)
http://www.designnews.com/article/CA179695.html
Do you often feel ...
This is not about me
Yes it is, Septic.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Ad hominem [summary] ping Denis Loubet |
03 Mar 2006 04:23:06 PM |
|
|
In article <qqidnbPRvfX0DZXZRVn-vg@comcast.com>,
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:4407A37A.47EDCE64@Hovnanian.com...
Bullet wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:44075E0C.C2D242A4@Hovnanian.com...
Bullet wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:44066C11.3F443682@Hovnanian.com...
Bullet wrote:
You think it is not logical fallacy if what you say while
attacking
the
other person is true?
You are mistaken. Even if your statements about your opponent
were
true
it
is still the logical fallacy of changing the subject to divert
from
the
issue genuinely under discussion to ANYTHING else.
See:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
Changing the Subject
Attacking the Person:
(1) the person's character is attacked
(2) the person's circumstances are noted
(3) the person does not practise what is preached
(and there are other forms of changing the subject)
Tell us more about the attacks that you believe are occurring.
Thanks for another excellent example of the fallacy of trying to
change
the
subject!
No subject change at all.
Yes it would be. As I pointed out, and you snipped, the topic is the
logical
fallacy of argument _ad hominem_ (a form of the fallacy of trying to
change
the subject) IN GENERAL, not any particular case. Don't they teach
informal
(ordinary language) logic to you Presentation Engineers? 8^)
http://www.designnews.com/article/CA179695.html
Do you often feel ...
This is not about me
That is what Septic, aka Bullet, would like to make happen, but there
are enough who know better to keep the subject of Septic's behaviour
front and center.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Ad hominem [summary] ping Denis Loubet |
02 Mar 2006 05:19:52 PM |
|
|
Bullet wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:44075E0C.C2D242A4@Hovnanian.com...
Bullet wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:44066C11.3F443682@Hovnanian.com...
Bullet wrote:
You think it is not logical fallacy if what you say while attacking
the
other person is true?
You are mistaken. Even if your statements about your opponent were
true
it
is still the logical fallacy of changing the subject to divert from
the
issue genuinely under discussion to ANYTHING else.
See:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
Changing the Subject
Attacking the Person:
(1) the person's character is attacked
(2) the person's circumstances are noted
(3) the person does not practise what is preached
(and there are other forms of changing the subject)
Tell us more about the attacks that you believe are occurring.
Thanks for another excellent example of the fallacy of trying to change
the
subject!
No subject change at all.
Yes
No, sir. Two bags full, Septic.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Ad hominem [summary] ping Denis Loubet |
02 Mar 2006 06:05:20 PM |
|
|
In article <M9Cdna-cFOcB65rZ4p2dnA@comcast.com>,
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote:
No subject change at all.
Yes it would be.
Since everyone except Septic has a subject quite different from the one
Septic is trying to change things to, it is Septic who trying to change
things from the subject of the majority, in order to cover his own *****.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Ad hominem [summary] ping Denis Loubet |
02 Mar 2006 01:29:18 PM |
|
|
In article <KIedncYz46R_lZrZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:44066C11.3F443682@Hovnanian.com...
Tell us more about the attacks that you believe are occurring.
Thanks for another excellent example of the fallacy of trying to change the
subject!
How is asking about what Septic is talking about construed by Septic to
be a change of the subject Se[ptic is talking about?
Only someone as mentally bent out of shape as Septic would view reality
in so warped a manner.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
