sci.physics.electromag

On Feb 12, 2:40 pm, Peter Bowditch wrote:

> >> >So what do I know- really?
>
> >> Nothing, by the look of things.
>
> >So you repeat your ignorance a third time and then try to "win" the
> >debate with ad hominem name-calling!
>
> Why do quackery supporters almost universally fail to understand what
> "ad hominem" means?

Why do you insist upon demonstrating your ignorance in a public
forum? Don't you know how to actually READ the things you post?

*Ad Hominem* dear boy, is a latin phrase meaning "to the man" meaning
in a debate an attack upon the character of the opponent rather than
addressing his arguments. Now I know you can do this: Read carefully
the above statement you posted. John said "what do I know?" and you
countered with "nothing by the look of things". Anyone with even a
modest command of the English language can easily see you said that
John "knows nothing"! It was an attack on John's intelligence. It was
NOT a response to his debating points. It is in short, an "ad
hominem" attack!

Why do you insist over and over that I embarrass you and demonstrate
your ignorance in public? Did you ever think of taking an on-line
correspondence course to get your diploma?

It's better to keep silent and be suspected of being a fool than to
open your mouth and remove all doubt!

I'm sorry. This is just too easy. I'm outta here.