Replies

Whether the statement is about Romney, his mother, another FR member, or even your mother does not matter. Name calling does not add facts or information to the point you are making. It is meant to stir up emotions and manipulate people who can’t understand the facts or circumstances of the situation at hand.

Actually it does, all your self-defense not withstanding, because it paints an entirely different picture of the original poster as someone willing to simply emotionally attack another Freeper Poster, which Gene Eric does not. He post usually provide enough context to clearly provide a cogent and reasonable reason for the use of derisive language.

So, your original post, implied that Gene post was a perfect example of the diatribe being presented on this thread, and clearly, if you had either done your own research and read a little more you would have known that it was not a perfect example. But no, you gloss over that and then try to continue to defend your misguided post.

Finally, the use of strong language when referring to Mitt Romney is necessitated by the utter and complete deceit of Mitt Romney and his progressive liberalism.

If you had been paying attention, you would have known that.

And yes, you do need to apologize to Gene Eric. Be honest, don't lie about having correctly pegged Gene with your first comment.

Don't do a back-handed apology about how we did not understand your comment.

And yes, you do need to apologize to Gene Eric. Be honest, don't lie about having correctly pegged Gene with your first comment.

That should have read:

And yes, you do need to apologize to Gene Eric. Be honest, don't lie about having incorrectly pegged Gene with your first comment.

“Actually it does, all your self-defense not withstanding, because it paints an entirely different picture of the original poster as someone willing to simply emotionally attack another Freeper Poster,...”

I, nor the article limited the context of the ad hominem to attacking a person posting a comment.

Excerpt from article:
“Simply including an ad hominem attack in a reader comment was enough to make study participants think the downside of the reported technology was greater than they’d previously thought.”

Comment posted by Gene:

“Not your state, a-hole.”

The article nor my comment does not state whether the ad hominem attack was against the author or another person posting comments on the article. An “ad hominem” attack is merely an attack on the person rather than their argument. It’s a logical fallacy of argumentation used to emotionally bias. You are merely making a misstatement of my comment in order to discredit it.