On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 10:33:29PM +0100, Florent Rougon wrote: > Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> wrote: > > > The parent post is a perfect example of argumentum ad hominem (which > > we don't actually see all that often these days; most people have the > > decency to keep their arguments independent). > > The parent post illustrates your way of arguing from my point of view, > and also provided a bit of enterainment to some readers if I am to > believe private replies. So you haven't been paying attention to my arguments, rather reading only some of the peripheral commentry. That says quite a lot about you. > > It's a variation on "You insulted me therefore you must be wrong", > > which is amusing but bullshit. > > I'm getting very childish in doing so, but you're forcing me, really: > *you* began the ad hominem attacks when you accused Mathias to be on > drugs. No I didn't. I challenge you to cite any case where I have said that he was wrong because he was on drugs. (No answer will be presumed to mean that you were making it up). I don't think you comprehend what "argumentum ad hominem" means. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature