Replies

I don't like ad homimens from any source and I won't defend them. Though sometimes sorely tempted, I really do try to avoid name calling. But Patrick's post was squarely on the ad hominem track, implying that the posters had nothing of substance to say that was relevant (by omission).

Using your own sense of what an ad hominem argument is, why don't you revisit your own post to me (which was posted at about the same time as my suspension):

The subject is a pathetic article that has drawn 1,800 posts. My theory is that this is so because the article is pathetic.
Begin with a supposed science magazine that bashes Creationists -- that's politics, atheist leftist politics. We don't have to look far for confirmaton -- the following from very early in the article:
...the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination.
This is just a series of bold and blatant lies. The evidence is missing, not massing. Failure of public imagination? Hardly. The public's got it right. The failure is with decades of evolutionist propaganda in our public schools. The biggest lie, though, is "truth beyond a reasonable doubt". Evolution would fail in any court of law in the land. It has not made its case.
The article, Patrick, is just garbage, and it will remain garbage whether it draws 1,800 posts or 180,000.
1792 posted on 6/25/02 10:06 AM Eastern by Phaedrus

Using your standards, I should have hit the abuse button and complained about an ad hominem attack. But I didn't (well, at that time I was suspended and I couldn't), but I wouldn't have anyway, because you were merely exprssing your opinion about the article. (Besides, complaining to the moderator about a post of yours would be ... well, never mind.)

Using your own sense of what an ad hominem argument is ...

Now I've got to stop you right there, Patrick. You are putting words into my mouth and you know that's not permitted, so why do you do it?

Using your standards, I should have hit the abuse button and complained about an ad hominem attack. But I didn't (well, at that time I was suspended and I couldn't), but I wouldn't have anyway, because you were merely exprssing your opinion about the article. (Besides, complaining to the moderator about a post of yours would be ... well, never mind.)

Now, Patrick, as you admit, your citation of my post underlines commentary directed at the article and unless you are the article, you have no basis for complaint.

But thank you for the repost of my commentary.

I have yet to hit the "Abuse" button but I suppose the day may come.