Curly Surmudgeon wrote:

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 15:52:11 -0700, Stuart Grey wrote:

Curly Surmudgeon wrote:

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 14:38:28 -0700, Stuart Grey wrote:

Curly Surmudgeon wrote:

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:31:19 -0700, Stuart Grey wrote:

< snip >

It is not a logical fallicy to "attack" someone for plagerizing a comic strip if the argument is they plagerized a comic strip.

Yes, it is still an ad homenim.  Your attack has nothing to do with the
thread, it's an attack on the author.  That's an ad homenim.

Clearly, you flunked logic. But then, you wouldn't be a liberal if you had passed it.

Add yet another ad homenim.

I think my error was assuming you flunked logic. To flunk logic, you'd have to have taken logic. Even someone who failed it would have learned SOME of the concepts.

You clearly have never TAKEN logic, and are quite alien to the concept.

Again, "argumentum ad hominem" is a term used in logic to describe the logical falicy of an irrelevant attack against the man. I explained this up above, when I said that IF the argument is that the man has plagerized a comic strip, it is not irrelevant and is essential to the argument, thus is not an argumentum ad hominem even if the Latin phrase doesn't mention the need for irrelevancy.

"Ad homenim" is just a couple of words that you thought sounded "neat" and you latched on to them and like to repeat them. Sort of like a parrot, I suppose.