Replies

“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.

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.

You are leaving out the context of FreeRepublic (Knowledge of the perfidy, deceit, and Progressive Liberal record) and the known history of Mitt Romney whom the thread that Gene Eric posted on was all about. You are still being dishonest.

Courtesy post to Gene Eric, since he is whom we are really talking about.

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

@ post #17, you, tired&retired, said I attacked the messenger clearly limiting the context:

You attacked the messenger by calling him/her a name rather than stating your valid argument.

Of course my argument was valid concerning Romney's attempt to subvert the will of AZ.