Ronald Huttner wrote:
> In article <4789f52d$0$24086$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> Sylvia
> Else wrote:
>> You obviously still have plenty to study about the basic principles
>> of statutory interpretation."
>
> So you think the statement, "You obviously still have plenty to study
> about the basic principles of statutory interpretation" is
> indistinguishable from calling someone a "cretin" or an "idiot" ?
Yes. It's an attack on the person, and advances the argument not in the
slightest. It's an attempt to diminish the impact of the person's
position by means other than demonstrating, or at least arguing, that
their position is faulty.
I'll
> bear that in mind for the future. By the way, whenever I have
> disagreed with something that you have written, I have always tried
> clearly to tell you why, and been willing to further discuss the issue
> at hand.
But only if allowed to continue the ad-hominem stuff as well. The rest
of the thread I cited provides a clear demonstration of that.
> Where appropriate, I have referred to relevant case-law or
> relevant links. Those other insulters to whom I have referred have
> never actually even attempted to discuss their disagreements with me,
> or this newsgroups. Just hurled insults. If you go back in relation to
> this caveat matter, you will see that you actually agreed that I had
> been insulted without justification and was perfectly entitled to
> respond in kind to Oksana Garbage/Gibberish.
What goes around comes around. If you hadn't already demonstrated a
willingness to use ad-hominem attacks, you might have found Oksana more
amenable to discussion.
Sylvia. |