Chris McSweeny wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 5:23 PM, RussellMc wrote: >> Hat: Admin >> >> On 11 May 2011 00:02, Olin Lathrop wrote: >> >>> I find someone with a attitude problem hiding a political statement >>> within a question not worth helping. =A0Grow up and ask your real >>> question. =A0If you want to make a political statement go find a >>> soapbox elsewhere.=20 >>>=20 >>> (That this is not a defense of Windows, just a reaction to the >>> implied, obnoxious, and childish "everyone knows" type of >>> indictment.) >=20 >> 2. Ad hominem attacks, which your diatribe is >=20 > Is it? I don't see any attack on the person, just an attack on the > wording used. Not an unreasonable point IMHO.=20 >=20 > Please correct me if I've misunderstood the meaning of "ad hominem" Interesting... Got me thinking. "Ad hominem" means something like "to the man". An "ad-hominem attack" would be an attack of the person. Calling someone having an "attitude problem", needing to "grow up" or categorizing a question as "obnoxious and childish" are generally (at least around the people I generally am in contact with, and presumably also the people Russell is generally in contact with) considered attacks "to the man". Given this, calling the cited text an "ad-hominem attack" doesn't seem to be unreasonable. (It doesn't help that the "obnoxious and childish" are only "implied" -- implied by whom, one may ask.) However, it doesn't constitute what considers the ad-hominem fallacy -- because Olin didn't actually question any (explicit) affirmation, and didn't use logical reasoning (whether correct or incorrect). But Russell didn't claim it was the ad-hominem /fallacy/, and others think it doesn't exist at all . :) Gerhard --=20 http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .