Ronald Huttner wrote:
> In article <478abb65$0$31016$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> Sylvia
> Else wrote:
>> Ronald Huttner wrote:
>>> In article <478ab454$0$8437$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> Sylvia
>>> Else wrote:
>>>> Ronald Huttner wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>> Fine - but you'll still get annoyed when I won't respond in
>>>> substance to your posts when they contain ad hominem attacks.
>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> Are we now agreed that you DO, in fact, write ad nauseam ?
>>> Excellent !
>>>
>
>> I wondered whether you'd want to treat my response as agreement with
>> all your assertions. I rather expected that you would. Seems I was
>> right.
>
>> Sylvia.
>
> As a person with huge and obvious legal talent, you MUST know that you
> have NOT answered my question.Stop "wondering" and answer it !
Look up "rhetorical question". You did after all say "Excellent" after
your alleged question, indicating that you were not in fact waiting for
an answer.
> Any reply from you referring yet again to "ad hominem" attacks will
> be automatically and immediately trashed.
>
>
That should make things considerably quieter, particular given the
claimed automatic nature, which presumably won't be able to realise that
this appearance of the expression ad hominem attack is not in fact a
reference to one.
Sylvia. |