In a message dated 10/6/2000 10:23:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time, DNAunion
writes:
> >SeJones: This is old news. My recollection is that it was posted to the
> Reflector some time ago. Presumably to heighten the impression of some sort
> of conspiracy by the ID movement, Susan gives the impression that this is
> the first time she had heard of it, which I must say say I would find hard
> to believe.
>
> >FMAJ: Nice ad hominem
>
> >DNAunion: Sure, you recognize "that" as an ad hom, but Susan's calling me
> a creationist and dishonest without even knowing me, well that you think is
> fine?
>
> >FMAJ: Nice non sequitor as well as strawman. Boy, this must be a night of
> logical fallacies.
>
>
> DNAUnion: You need to look up the definition of strawman before you use it.
>
> And the point is valid. SeJones said of Susan "I would find [it] hard to
> believe" that "this is the first time she had heard of it" - and you call
> that an ad hom.
>
Yes, he speculates and suggests that Susan has alternative motives and should
have known about it.
> On the other hand, Susan calls me, Mike, and others at ARN DISHONEST and
> CREATIONISTS (obviously meaning it in it fullest insluting connotation)
> without knowing my, Mike's, or the others' positions or beliefs, and that
> is not an ad hom?????
>
As I said, nice non sequitur and strawman. Where did I say that this is not
an ad hom? What did Susan say btw in context?
> Come one, get real.
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 06 2000 - 14:20:36 EDT