Ronald Huttner wrote:
> In article <4789f52d$0$24086$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> Sylvia
> Else wrote:
>> Ronald Huttner wrote:
>>> In article <9jojo35q2obcn5o2lh162d5lckn4snu8fa@yarwho.com>
>>> Snapper wrote:
>>>> Sylvia Else wrote...
>>>>> > You just demonstrated to the contrary, Ron Ron - excitable,
>>>>> little and an > idiot. There is no escaping it.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> Where do you find the energy for this?
>>>
>>>> Maybe these guys are for real lawyers, or law students perhaps.
>>>> They may useUsenet to "hone" their "debating" skills.
>>>
>>>> Or they may not...
>>>
>>> They certainly don't hone any debating skills here in aus.legal.
>>> On the contrary, all that the overwhelming bulk of posters here do
>>> is hurl stupid, puerile insults.
>
>> Me thinks you protest too much. There is little to distinguish said
>> insults from any other form of ad hominem attack. Before you start
>> throwing stones, you should examine your own conduct where you said,
>> of me, "You obviously still have plenty to study about the basic
>> principles of statutory interpretation."
>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/aus.legal/msg/ab7a9bcd6c4df5f8
>
>> Sylvia.
>
> Pity you didn't reproduce exactly what it was that I wrote. I made it
> quite clear, in some detail, precisely WHY I felt that your
> understanding of basic principles of statutory interpretation was
> deficient. Read in context, it was NOT an "ad hominen" attack at all.
Yes, it was an ad hominem attack. You didn't need to make the claim that
I still have plenty to study about the basic principles of statutory
interpretation." You could have provided the rest of the argument
without it.
> You unfortunately treat ANYTHING critical of what you write as an "ad
> hominen" attack, which is simply absurd. What I wrote was:-
There's an abundance of material in the Google Groups archive to show
that that's not the case.
>
> "You obviously still have plenty to study aboutthe basic principles
> ofstatutory interpretation.
See - that wasn't relevant to the debate.
> The word "required" in this statutory
> context would, quite plainly, be interpreted objectively rather than
> subjectively. Otherwise every idiot breaching the legislation would be
> able to argue that his/her wife/husband, friend, colleague or employer
> "required" him/her to go into the proscribed zone just to take photos
> as souvenirs, to do it as a dare, to do it simply for the sheer fun of
> seeing whether he/she could get away with it, to get into the Guinness
> Book Of Records, etc etc. No sane court is going to seriously look at
> the question of whether the person in the proscribed zone simply felt
> or was told that he/she was "required" to be there - but only at the
> question of whether, viewed objectively, and taking into account the
> obvious and clear purpose of the legislation, the person (including
> his/her employer) was in fact "required" to be there. All legislation
> is requited to be construed purposively and absolutely no-one
> is"required" to choose, as the setting for a satirical sketch, a
> location which is clearly proscribed.
> Get real Sylvia, if you want
> tobe taken at all seriously".
Ah yes - another ad hominem with the implication that I'm not being
taken seriously.
I think you introduce these attacks so automatically that you don't even
recognised that you're doing it. Perhaps that's why you resist being
required to debate without using that tactic - because you find it very
difficult.
Sylvia. |