The problem with Jerry is that he thinks that by insulting and
threatening anybody that disagrees with him, he's going to win the
point. I don't know if that tactic has worked for him in the past but
I can assure you it won't work with me. On the contrary, the more he
insults me and threatens me, the more I'm going to expose him for what
he really is. And I'll go as far as it takes.
============
i can't tell you how many times i've told jerry that. shit, have a look in
c.l.p. i'll say he's not quite right about something and five day later
you've got a thread the length of...i don't know...something *very* long.
and 90% of it is ad-hom, you-are-no-you-are language.
============
I didn't know what "ad-hom" meant:
<
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad hominem>
ad hominem [ad hom-uh-nuhm?nem, ahd-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA
Pronunciation
adjective
[snip to the usage I intended.]
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his
argument.
and from Wikipedia:
"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin:
"argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of
replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to
a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim,
rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing
evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the
claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to
change the subject.
It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem
abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or
personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to
discredit that argument.
Other common subtypes of the ad hominem include the ad hominem
circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is
directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer; and the ad
hominem tu quoque, which objects to an argument by characterizing the
arguer as acting or arguing in accordance with the view that he is
arguing against.
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."
Yep, that's Jerry for sure ...