On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 02:42:47 +0000, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 09:21:05PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 01:51:24AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>> > While "Don't respond to Craig Sanders" is usually a good idea, I
>> > feel compelled to point out to anybody casually watching that the
>> > parent post is pure FUD; read it with a critical mind and you
>> > should find the flaws. The first paragraph, for example, is
>> > entirely delusional.
>>
>> This is ad hominem.
> At no point did I suggest that he was wrong because of who he is.
> I suggested that talking to him is a bad idea because of who he
> is. That's not an ad hominem argument - it's not even an
> argument. It's a perfectly normal insult.
> I further noted that he was wrong, and felt no need to offer a
> detailed rebuttal, since any intelligent reader should be able to
> think it through for themselves, given a hint.
Frankly, at this point, he is coming out in a better light in
this debate than you are.
manoj
--
"... they [the Indians] are not running but are coming on." note sent
from Lt. Col Custer to other officers of the 7th Regiment at the
Little Bighorn
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
