On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 23:28:11 -0700, Stuart Grey wrote:

Curly Surmudgeon wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 20:14:31 -0700, Stuart Grey wrote:

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,

Now you're rewriting history:

--------quote----------
So, you steal your material from the funny pages?

Typical liberal. If there's no cartoon, they don't get the message.
-------unquote---------

This is the great thing about the computer age, your words are eternal. 
There was no conditional as you are now trying to fabricate, it's a
clearly ad homenim by implication.

Do you have a point?

In the first sentance, I noted that you plagerized a Wiley cartoon.

In the first sentence you _assserted_ that I plagerized.  I corrected your
assumption but you continue like an old dog unable to learn a new trick.

In the second sentance, I noted that liberals like cartoons. They 
generally use ridicule and cartoons to get their messages across.
Anyone who's seen the political cartoons in the left wing rags knows 
that. This is an observation, not an irrelevant personal attack.

It's TWO, TWO mints in one!

In your previous posting you added a capitalized conditional, "IF" that is
not to be found in the origional.  Yes, you continue to hurl ad homenims
to distract.  This topic has the title "INTELLIGENT" prominently listed,
you'd do well to stop trespassing.

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.

Oh, silly me.  Your distractions and ad homenims are somehow on-topic. 

No, stupid you, (stupid because I keep explaining to you that "ad 
hominem" is a type of logical fallicy and not a personal insult) because 
you are too dense to know what an ad homenim is, even after I've 
explained it to you.

Ah, more ad homenims.  Well, that sure is a convincing arguement.  Not.

Please tell us how your posting above relates to "INTELLIGENT DESIGN vs.
EVOLUTION."

It doesn't. We left that subject long ago.

"We"?  What do you mean "we", white boy?

"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.

There you go again...

No. You're stupid. I've made the case that you're stupid by pointing out
that you cannot learn what an argumentum ad hominem means. The subject
of that argument is your intelligence so it is not an irrelevant attack
against you. It is not the logical fallicy "argumentum ad hominem". You
STILL won't understand it, because you're stupid.

Heh, there you go with the ad homenims again.  Nasty habit, that. 
Submarines any arguement you offer as people immediately stop reading.

Of course that suits your orignal objective.

-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Deserters should be in prison, not in the White House
------------------------------------------------------------------------