When it gets ad hominem is when I perceive it as an attack. Staying strictly to the subject does not get seen this way. I only took issue with it because I dislike the tenor that it sets for the list. Uncooperative, unhelpful, arrogant, argumentative people such as yourself are a blight.
Yours and one or two others' emails were (loosely) ad hominem, not strictly in so far as the argument is concerned because there wasn't much being put by way of an argument by me to begin with (as much as you seem to wish to disagree with this), but in so far as where criticisms were being directed.
I could successfully argue how it is that I disagree with you in respect of the various unchallenged claims that you've made but I couldn't be stuffed. It isn't worth it as of some time ago. So, I'm going to follow my own advice now.
<thoran@thoran.com> wrote in message
news:f07a9ed5114e65bbdddb855068092341@shiny...
Dear Spamhater,
When it gets ad hominem is when I perceive it as an attack. Staying
strictly to the subject does not get seen this way. I only took issue
with it because I dislike the tenor that it sets for the list.
Uncooperative, unhelpful, arrogant, argumentative people such as yourself
are a blight.
I couldn't help but notice you haven't quoted anything.
It would be helpful to see exactly what you interpreted as an "ad
hominem" attack so that I may avoid it in the future, especially when
responding to you. It was never my intention to attack you and I have
never wrote anything to do so.
Yours and one or two others' emails were (loosely) ad hominem, not
strictly in so far as the argument is concerned because there wasn't much
being put by way of an argument by me to begin with (as much as you seem
to wish to disagree with this), but in so far as where criticisms were
being directed.
Criticism is not an attack. To what criticisms are you referring?