On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Charlie Bell <char...@culturelist.org> wrote:
> Other than implying that Brad censors his blog of disagreement and > Nick is dishonest, you mean? Brad called me a troll and tried to incite people to censor me, which is not polite. I replied to that insult rather politely, in that I asked him why he thinks he has the power to censor people on this email list, as he does on his blog. As for censorship on his blog, do you mean to imply that you think he does not delete comments he disagrees with? Because I know for a fact that he does, and he has done it to the comments of many people who have tried to post polite opinions that did not agree with Brad's agenda. As for Nick, we were having a discussion about how honest people deal with borrowing and paying back money. Given that the discussion had started by Nick mentioning his attempts at loan modification, it would be virtually impossible to discuss the situation without it being possible for people to see some implications. But that does not constitute an ad hominem argument, since the discussion was actually about the ethics of the situation. > And for the record, _ad hominem_ is not personal attack. I am well aware of the meaning. You used it ambiguously. Literally, the Latin translates as "to man" or "to the man", which could of course refer to about anything about a man or humanity in general. It is generally used as a modifier, such as "ad hominem attack" or "ad hominem argument". Since you did not specify, I made a guess at what you meant. > It is failing to respond to an argument, or using a person's > attributes as a reason why their argument is wrong. Right up with the > other logical fallacies. So you meant ad hominem argument. > And pointing out that you're trolling is likewise not a personal attack, > it's a description of your behaviour, An incorrect description of my behavior, to which I replied with a question about Brad's censorship behavior. > All I can do is respond to the writing you post, and that writing is > weak and your reasoning poorly explained. That's not a personal attack > either. How do you categorize responding to a post you disagree with by writing "FUCK YOU" and saying that you are going to kill file the poster? > I would LOVE to see someone post well-reasoned arguments for the > conservative right position in the States, but I'm not seeing them > here (or anywhere else, for that matter). If you think that I can be categorized as the "conservative right", then you do not understand my views at all. Not surprising, since your past behavior has been to get extremely angry about my "weak writing and poor explaining", and then to stop reading my posts. Which is of course your prerogative, but it seems odd that you become so upset just from reading such worthless arguments. I would think the more natural response would be boredom and skipping to the next thing to read. _______________________________________________ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
