In a message dated 10/15/2000 11:05:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time, DNAunion
writes:
> > SJ: I did not say anything about Susan personally except that she "gives
> the impression that this is the first time she had heard of it..." which is
> honestly how it seemed, to me at least.
>
> > Bertvan: Susan now has something better than merely calling those who
> disagree with her liars.
>
> >FMAJ: Please explain?
>
> DNAunion: There's your inability to grasp the obvious again. I suppose
> you don't consider calling people "emotionally disturbed", on top of
> calling them "liars", is inappropriate in any way, shape, or form?
>
Ad hominem. So it's ok to use an ad hominem when others do? Fascinating
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 16 2000 - 10:40:25 EDT