Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: ffff
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 17:10:51 +0100
Organization: www.usenetposts.com
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <c05nfi$v2a$0@pita.alt.net>
References: <EPGTb.4540$ow4.1905@twister.socal.rr.com> <F3cUb.7546$ow4.7354@twister.socal.rr.com> <IG1Vb.843$Y%6.155733@wards.force9.net>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:2223
Uzytkownik "Snowbird" <snowbirdRemoveThis@ThisToosnowbird.freeserve.co.uk>
napisal w wiadomosci news:IG1Vb.843$Y%6.155733@wards.force9.net...
> Dr. Jason Gastrich wrote:
>
> > I sent this letter to Nightshade (Jason); the moderator of the debate.
> >
> >
> > Hi Jason,
> >
> > I see that you have deleted some words of mine that you have judged as
ad
> > hominem. As we know, ad hominem is a logical fallacy. Why do you feel
it
> > appropriate to delete this particular logical fallacy and leave others
in
> > place (e.g. Sean's arguments by assertion)? If you wanted to be
unbiased
> > and fair, then wouldn't you either have to delete ALL logical fallacies
or
> > NONE of them?
> >
> > I feel the readers should see logical fallacies and decide for
themselves if
> > they are good arguments or not. As a moderator, I don't understand why
you
> > would delete sorts of arguments that you find illogical or
inappropriate.
> > Before I continue the debate, please let me know if there are any other
> > logical fallacies that you will immediately delete and if you intend to
go
> > through Sean's posts and delete his logical fallacies.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Jason Gastrich
>
> Because that's the rules you signed up to, boy.
>
> Ad hominens are insulting,
So why did you call him 'boy', then?
Uncle Davey, and please note that the accusative of that class of nouns ends
in 'm' not 'n'. It's Latin, not Esperanto.
|
|