sci.physics.electromag

Benj wrote:

>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.

Why do quackery supporters almost universally fail to understand what
"ad hominem" means?

> 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!

"Ad hominem" is an attack based on an a priori assumption or
statement. In this case John had exhibited his ignorance and then
asked a question which I answered based on the evidence before us all.

>
>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.

That's the way. Run away.

--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com