I give up, after many, many years!

On May 13, 6:16*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
More_Flaps wrote :



On May 13, 10:37*am, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On May 12, 5:11*pm, More_Flaps wrote:

On May 13, 9:51*am, Mxsmanic wrote:

More_Flaps writes:
I think you are MXing up an ad hominem with simple personal
attack.

Same thing.

Nope.

Not to nit-pick, but:

"Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun denoting
personal attacks, as in "Notwithstanding all the ad hominem, Gingrich
insists that he and Panetta can work together" (Washington Post)"

Here you go, a better definition than the washington pist:

"Ad hominem arguments are always invalid in syllogistic logic, since
the truth value of premises is taken as given, and the validity of a
logical inference is independent of the person making the inference.
However, ad hominem arguments are rarely presented as formal
syllogisms, and their assessment lies in the domain of informal logic
and the theory of evidence.[1] The theory of evidence depends to a
large degree on assessments of the credibility of witnesses, including
eyewitness evidence and expert witness evidence. Evidence that a
purported eyewitness is unreliable, or has a motive for lying, or that
a purported expert witness lacks the claimed expertise can play a
major role in making judgements from evidence.
Argumentum ad hominem is the inverse of argumentum ad verecundiam, in
which the arguer bases the truth value of an assertion on the
authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it. Hence,
while an ad hominem argument may make an assertion less compelling, by
showing that the person making the assertion does not have the
authority, knowledge or position they claim, or has made mistaken
assertions on similar topics in the past, it cannot provide an
infallible counterargument."

Cheers

The guy who wrote that is an asshole.

You know him/her?

Cheers