In article <478aa780$0$13113$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> Sylvia
Else wrote:
> Ronald Huttner wrote:
>> In article <478a9508$0$4471$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> Sylvia
>> Else wrote:
>>> Ronald Huttner wrote:
>>>> In article <478a87da$0$13262$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>
>>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> 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 DID, indeed, argue as to why your position was faulty. I did
>>>> so at length.
>>
>>> Yes, you did. But only *after* you'd made a personal attack on
>>> me. By then it's too late. If you'd advanced your position without
>>> the personal attack prelude, the thread would have taken a
>>> different course.
>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>> You are a nit-picker. It was not a "personal attack" at all. It
>> was simply a vigorous disagreement with what you had written.
> "You obviously still have plenty to study about the basic principles
> of statutory interpretation" is not any sort of disagreement with
> what I'd written. It was purely and simply an attack on me.
>> WITH a
>> detailed explanation IMMEDIATELY AFTER the opening sentence.
> No, there was no detailed explanation of why it was obvious that I
> still have plenty to study about the basic principles of statutory
> construction. What followed was a discussion about the very narrow
> issue of the proper construction of the word "required". Even if you
> managed to prove in a formal sense that I had applied an improper
> construction to the word "required", it would still not support you
> claim about the extent of my learning about statutory construction.
> Why not
>> simply take the first sentence of what I wrote, and turn it into
>> the last sentence? Would that still be an "ad hominem" attack
> Yes, because explaining in detail why you disagree with me would not
> be a justification for your very wide conclusion that I had plenty to
> study, etc.
> , according
>> to your weird definition of that expression ??? Even AFTER I had
>> explained in detail why I disagreed with you ? For goodness sake,
>> you are so thin-skinned you really should seriously consider the
>> wisdom of ever venturing outside your home, let alone into a
>> hurly-burly free-for-all place such as aus.legal. You are TOO
>> "precious" by half !!
> Even now, while discussing ad-hominem arguments, you show yourself
> to be incapable of arguing without using them.
> Sylvia.
Let's agree to disagree.
I will continue to write "ad hominem".
And you will continue to rave on "ad nauseam".
That won't require you to change a thing.
|