But saying that he is giving up on a conversation with you is not an
attack "against the man". He is giving up on conversing with you because
you won't deal honestly with the evidence and you continually miss the
point. This is not even close to an ad hominem attack. Try again.
> EB> Furthermore, Glenn is, in my view, correct in giving up on
> >trying to hold a conversation with you.
>
> Glenn has announced on a number of occasions that he is giving
> up on trying to hold a conversation with me. Yet he always returns!
>
> EB> I have rarely had an exchange
> >with a person who matches your presumptuousness.
>
> Yes. I presumed that when you said you were a "deist" and a "staunch
> advocate of the theory of evolution" you meant it!
And I did mean it. Your presumptuousness goes far beyond that.
> EB>I gave up on trying to
> >hold a conversation with you (I am responding to this only to challenge
> >your claim that Glenn engages in ad hominem attacks, not because I
> >expect anything useful to come of it on your end of it) because you
> >jumped to the conclusion that I was "attempting to evade" your question
> >when, in fact, I was answering the question as you had written it
> >("Which theory do you advocate" is a very different question than
> >"Explain what you mean by evolution"; you asked the first).
>
> Whew! I'm out of breath just reading this one sentence!
Apparently too out of breath to answer it. I'll try to keep the
sentences shorter for you from now on.
> EB>I even gave
> >you the opportunity to back away from that jumped-to conclusion and say,
> >"Perhaps I didn't word that the way I meant it. I meant to ask you to
> >explain your own conception of evolutionary theory", but you refused,
> >repeatedly. That you thereafter have the sheer nerve to accuse anyone
> >else of a "lofty tone" is staggering.
>
> That's rich! *You* say that you are a "staunch advocate of the theory of
> evolution" and when I ask which "theory of evolution?" you ask me which
> "theory of evolution" *I* mean!
Since YOU used the term "which theory of evolution", I assumed that you
were referring to an already existing set of possibilities, and I said
"If you are referring to phyletic gradualism vs. punctuated
equilibrium...", thus making a reasonable assumption based on your own
words, yet leaving the door open for you to correct that assumption. You
could simply have said, "No, I actually meant to ask you to explain what
it is YOU mean by the theory of evolution. Sorry about the confusion",
but you didn't. Instead, you "stood by" your claim that I was trying to
evade the question (the one you did NOT ask, of course) and reiterated
it a second time. There is a term for this, Stephen. It's called
presumptuousness. Rudeness would also apply. It's a fun little game you
have here, Stephen. Ask one question, then accuse someone of evading a
different question. Then, of course, instead of just politely correcting
the question to reflect what you actually meant, reiterate the
accusation of evasion. You set the tone for this exchange, Stephen, with
your rudeness right up front. Is it any wonder that you are regarded as
an irritating git from that point on?
> >SJ>Ed has challenged me to give examples of your ad hominems:
> >>
> [...]
> >>
> >>so from now on I will add them to a new thread called "Glenn's ad hominems
> >>FAQ", classified in alphabetical order. Here is the first:
>
> EB>Great idea. Perhaps I will start a new thread called "Stephen's rudeness
> >and misconceptions of the nature of logical fallacies FAQ", classified
> >in alphabetical order. Here are the first two examples:
>
> [...]
>
> EB>This should be fun!
>
> It's OK by me Ed. I ask no quarter. Do your worst. It won't be much different from
> what the evolutionists have been doing for the last 2-3 years. It will only confirm
> further to me the adverse effect of evolution on those who believe it.
Gosh, Stephen, that seems an awful lot like your definition of an ad
hominem attack. I'm sure Jesus would be proud.
Ed