[Bulk] Re: Breakthrough
[Martin Taylor 2006.05.17.16.50]
With apologies to most of the CSGnet readers…
From [Marc Abrams
(2006.05.17.1646)]Then you tell me to jump in the
lake. Tsk tsk. How nice of you to saythat whilst mushing my name and calling me pin head. Owie. Uh huh,
adhominem, I would say.
Of course you would
say so. Mainly because you have no idea what an ad homonym attack
is,
From the Americal Heritage Dictionary on line:
homonym: 1. One of two or more words that
have the same sound and often the same spelling but differ in meaning,
such as bank (embankment) and bank (place where money is kept). 2a. A
word used to designate several different things. b. A namesake. 3.
Biology A taxonomic name identical to one previously applied to a
different species or genus and therefore unacceptable in its new
use.
“ad” is Latin meaning toward, so I guess an ad homonym
attack would be one that sounds as though it is getting close to what
you intend, but confuses the target because its meaning is
different.
so why not go to
your wikipedia and find out and when you do come back and show me
where I made it.
If you meant “ad hominem”, which was what Brian
suggested, here’s what the dictionary has to say (Wikipedia is more
exhaustive in its description of “ad hominem”, but it’s
essentially the same concept):
ad hominem: Appealing to personal
considerations rather than to logic or reason
Brian posted a selection of 25 ad hominem examples from Marc’s
recent posts. He doesn’t have to come back and do it again.
Here are a few more, all from Marc’s most recent
message [Marc Abrams (2006.05.17.1646)].
I’m not including sarcastic comments, of which there have been
many. If I were use the Wikipedia version of “ad
hominem”, I would add several more examples:
What I did was ask
a bunch of questions trying to figure out why Martin feels the way he
does, but apparently he wants to keep that a family secret so there is
little I can do.
(where’s the relevance in why I feel the way I do. Isn’t that
a personal consideration?)
[Five in a row from the same message:
When I see you
address the transgressions of all EQUALLY, I will give you some
credence. But until than you can stuff it.Besides, who placed
you in the seat of judgement? Who are you and what have you done to
merit this “authority”.I have not heard
anyone say that you are in fact speaking for them or voicing their
concerns. I hear you and your opinions which are no better or worse
than anyone else’s.BTW, what did you
get in your methods course? How much engineering have you
had?I’m not sure you
are even qualified to be on this list, let alone “moderate”
it.
[Three more. Same message]
What is “sad”
is your imagination. Do you really believe this
drival?If so, you’re about
as delusional as Rick, so you guys should make a great
teamMainly because you
have no idea what an ad homonym attack is, so why not go to your
wikipedia and find out and when you do come back and show me where I
made it.
Marc said to Bryan: When I see you address the transgressions of all
EQUALLY, I will give you some credence. " So, here are
ALL of Rick’s “transgressions” since Marc reappeared on the
list with [Marc Abrams
(2006.05.13.1742)], at least these are all I could find. They are all addressed to Marc. Again, I omit
instances of sarcasm, which is about as helpful to a discussion as is
an ad hominem instance, but in Rick’s case there was little or
none:
[From Rick Marken (2006.05.15.1120)]
Zero
[From Rick Marken (2006.05.15.1440)]
Zero
[From Rick Marken (2006.05.15.2110)]
Zero
[From Rick Marken (2006.05.16.1640)]
I think you are confusing your goal
(which is to sell PCT) with mine (which is to do PCT science and
hope that others will join in). I think you may have boundary
issues.
[From Rick Marken (2006.05.17.0910)]
Well, I guess that let’s you out as the
person who will fund my endowed chair in PCT. I thought that since you
have been so successful at selling you would need a tax write - off
and an endowed chair would be just the ticket. Ah
well.Every experiment I have done is an
attempt to falsify HPCT. The fact that they didn’t falsify it doesn’t
mean that falsification was not possible. The fact that you don’t know
this kind of justifies my response to your fast ball.
[From Rick Marken (2006.06.17.1230)]
Zero.
That’s the list. (Rick) Three mild examples from six longish
messages full of ad rem discussion, as compared to (Marc) nine
examples in one message.
I guess this entire message is literally “ad hominem”,
and that’s the reason for my apology up front. But it does have a
serious point, more or less made by the phrase “The pot calling
the kettle black”.
Martin
. But after 25 doses in one message, I felt that it was necessary to show in one list the extent of hypocricy.