Re: Understanding the Principles of Argumentation #3

[Daniel Phillips]

On Tuesday 17 September 2002 00:31, David Woodhouse wrote:
> [e-mail] said:
> > This is the third in my "Understanding the Principles of
> > Argumentation" series.  Rusty has obligingly provided us with a fine
> > example of an "ad hominem attack": 
> 
> It is my understanding that the ad hominem fallacy takes the form "you are a
> patronising little shit, therefore what you say cannot be true". 
> 
> Rusty's comment seemed to be only that you were a patronising little shit,
> and not that this proved you to be incorrect -- hence it doesn't appear to 
> be a particularly fine example of 'ad hominem' at all.

You are entirely incorrect.  The issue raised was "given two interfaces with
the same functionality, choose the simpler of them".  Instead of addressing
that issue, the author was attacked.  Perfect example, as I said.

Now, if you think this thread is too long, why did you post to it?

-- 
Daniel