Took the M for a stroll

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by android, Dec 30, 2013.

  1. android

    Tony Cooper Guest

    As anyone can tell who reads my posts, it bothers me when people use
    words or terms incorrectly. A misuse grates on me much like a misuse
    of photography term grates on someone who understands how the word or
    term should be used.

    The term "begs the question" is one that I never use in any
    circumstances. I understand the meaning of the term, but far too many
    people don't. Too many people think that it means "that raises the
    question" and use it that way. That's wrong.

    Because it is likely to be misunderstood by many, it's best avoided.
    At best, some readers will interpret it to mean "it raises the
    question" and some will interpret it to mean "a conclusion has been
    reached based on a faulty premise". It's never good to use a phrase
    or a word if a significant number of readers will misunderstand what
    you mean.

    "Ad hominem" is in the same linguistic boat. Some, who don't
    understand the meaning, will take it only to mean "an insult" or a
    derogatory comment about someone. Others will wonder "But how is that
    a diversionary ploy in rebuttal to that point?". It shouldn't be
    used. If someone wants to say "More insults!", let 'em say that.
     
    Tony Cooper, Jan 5, 2014
    #81
    1. Advertisements

  2. android

    Robert Coe Guest

    : On 2014-01-05 16:41:31 +0000, Robert Coe <> said:
    :
    : > On Sun, 5 Jan 2014 06:07:51 -0800, Savageduck <[email protected]{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
    : > wrote:
    : > : On 2014-01-05 13:44:29 +0000, "J. Clarke" <> said:
    : > : > In article <>, says...
    :
    : <<< Le Snip >>>
    :
    : > : >> And that translates "personal attack".
    : > : >
    : > : > No, you are not attacking the person. There is a different Latin phrase
    : > : > that means "personal attack". You are attacking the argument by citing
    : > : > some irrelevant and possibly distasteful characteristic of the arguer.
    : > : > "Going to the Moon wasn't much of an achievement because von Braun was
    : > : > a Nazi" would be an example of argumentum ad hominem. There is no
    : > : > "attack" there. Von Braun _was_ a Nazi. The logical fallacy is that
    : > : > his being a Nazi had some relation to the difficulty of going to the
    : > : > Moon.
    : > :
    : > : That would be "begging the question" used correctly.
    : > : < http://begthequestion.info >
    : >
    : > Actually, I don't think I believe that explanation of the meaning of the
    : > phrase. Note that the article provides no historical context for its support
    : > of what it calls the "traditional" usage.
    : >
    : > As we all know, the fact that a given position can be found on the Internet
    : > doesn't make it true.
    :
    :
    : This is certainly not a case of PIDOOMA or Pulled It Directly Out Of My Ass.
    :
    : While what can be found on the internet is not always valid, many
    : internet reference sources can be substantiated and that is the case
    : with "beg the question" or "petitio principii". ...

    How did "petitio principii" come to be a translation of "beg the question"?
    Especially since "petitio" is (I think, without a Latin dictionary in front of
    me) a noun, while "beg" is a verb?

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 6, 2014
    #82
    1. Advertisements

  3. android

    Robert Coe Guest

    : On 2014-01-05 19:39:57 +0000, Tony Cooper <> said:
    :
    : > On Sun, 5 Jan 2014 13:36:35 -0500, "J. Clarke" <>
    : > wrote:
    : >
    : >> In article <[email protected]>,
    : >> [email protected]{REMOVESPAM}me.com says...
    : >>>
    : >>> On 2014-01-05 13:44:29 +0000, "J. Clarke" <> said:
    : >>>
    : >>>> In article <>, says...
    : >>>>>
    : >>>>> In article <>,
    : >>>>>
    : >>>>>> : In article <>, says...
    : >>>>>> : >
    : >>>>>> : > In article <>,
    : >>>>>> : >
    : >>>>>> : > >
    : >>>>>> : > > >In article <>,
    : >>>>>> : > > >
    : >>>>>> : > > >>
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >In article <>,
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> rOn Thu, 02 Jan 2014 11:31:30 -0500, Tony Cooper
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >>
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >>In article <>, Tony
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >>Cooper
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >>wrote:
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >>
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > > Tony Cooper:
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > > My only comment is "Why did you take it?".
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >>> > > >
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > > Normally, I'd critique an image only if I see
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > > something good
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > > and something that could be improved. I wouldn't
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > > comment on
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > > a photograph that has no redeeming value.
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >>> > > >
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > > But, here you've invited comments and even said you
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > > "worked"
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > > on the post. I can't understand why you'd bother.
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >>> > > >
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > > Surely, there was some interesting photographable
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > > scene
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > > around that day. The camera may have passed your
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > > test, but
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > > the operator of the camera failed.
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >>> > > >
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > Sandman:
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > Tony in a nutshell. He just can't stop at "Why did
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > you take it?", he has to lace the post with some
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > personal
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > insults as well. Why, otherwise he wouldn't be a troll,
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > of
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > course!
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >>> > >
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >>> > > Tony Cooper:
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >>> > > There's no insult to Android there.
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >>> >
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >>> > Sandman:
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >>> > Your grasp on the English language is as loose as always.
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >>>
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >>> You are commenting on personal aspects, and the rest of us
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >>> are
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >>> commenting on the photograph.
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >>
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >>> Who's the troll?
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >>
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >>You are.
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >>
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >> "but the operator of the camera failed."
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >>
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >>Ad hominem, when he wanted comments on the photograph. Typical
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >>Tony.
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >>
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> That's not an ad hominem. It's a comment.
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >>
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> Ad hominems are used in argument, not the conclusion.
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >>
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> "In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> abuse.
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> instead of
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> attack
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> someone;
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> necessarily an attack on that person's arguments."
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >An "ad hominem" comment is when there is an attempt to divert
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >the
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >discussion with a negative and irrelevant personal comment.
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >What you
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >have done is an almost classic example of this.
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >My comments were about the photograph, and extensively so, but
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >you
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >have snipped these to divert the discussion and included an
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >irrelevant
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >personal comment. Try looking up the term "ad hominem" so you
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >will
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >not embarrass yourself further.
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >It's ironic for a post to contain both a comment about not
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >understanding a language and a misuse of language by the same
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >> >person.
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad hominem
    : >>>>>> : > > >> >
    : >>>>>> : > > >>
    : >>>>>> : > > >> Yes, that's a good, if succinct, definition. The key words in that
    : >>>>>> : > > >> definition are "rather than". In other words, instead of providing
    : >>>>>> : > > >> a
    : >>>>>> : > > >> rebuttal to an argument, the person who employs the ad hominem route
    : >>>>>> : > > >> attacks the person in order to divert the discussion.
    : >>>>>> : > > >>
    : >>>>>> : > > >> A response that legitimately addresses the point of contention, and
    : >>>>>> : > > >> also contains an insult, is not an ad hominem response.
    : >>>>>> : > > >
    : >>>>>> : > > >Webster:
    : >>>>>> : > > >Definition of AD HOMINEM
    : >>>>>> : > > >1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
    : >>>>>> : > > >2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather
    : >>>>>> : > > >than
    : >>>>>> : > > >by an answer to the contentions made
    : >>>>>> : > >
    : >>>>>> : > > These have that "rather than" again. The intellectual argument has
    : >>>>>> : > > been abandoned in favor of, or rather than, an attack to the emotions.
    : >>>>>> : > > For ad hominem to exist, there has to be a) a point of contention that
    : >>>>>> : > > calls for rebuttal, and b) an attempt to divert the discussion to
    : >>>>>> : > > something personal instead of, or rather than, providing a rebuttal.
    : >>>>>> : > >
    : >>>>>> : > > It's all about diversion. Instead of addressing your
    : >>>>>> : > > counter-argument, I'll call you names and divert the discussion to
    : >>>>>> : > > your character. That's an argumentum ad hominem.
    : >>>>>> : >
    : >>>>>> : > Now you've gone silly... The term comes from the latin and means
    : >>>>>> : > basically "personal attack". That's has not changed.
    : >>>>>> :
    : >>>>>> : 'fraid not. In Latin, "ad" is a preposition which can be translated as
    : >>>>>> : "toward", "to", "up to", or "in the direction of". "Hominem" is the
    : >>>>>> : accusative singular of "homo" or "person". "ad hominem" per se means
    : >>>>>> : simply "to the person", not "personal attack". "perferretque ad
    : >>>>>> : hominem" would be a message to the man for example--there is nothing in
    : >>>>>> : the phrase "ad hominem" that indicates any kind of attack. "Personal
    : >>>>>> : attack" would be more like "quod personaliter impetus".
    : >>>>>> :
    : >>>>>> : In the context of debate, "ad hominem" is short for "argumentum ad
    : >>>>>> : hominem", which is an "argument to the man".
    : >>>>>>
    : >>>>>
    : >>>>> And that translates "personal attack".
    : >>>>
    : >>>> No, you are not attacking the person. There is a different Latin phrase
    : >>>> that means "personal attack". You are attacking the argument by citing
    : >>>> some irrelevant and possibly distasteful characteristic of the arguer.
    : >>>> "Going to the Moon wasn't much of an achievement because von Braun was a
    : >>>> Nazi" would be an example of argumentum ad hominem. There is no
    : >>>> "attack" there. Von Braun _was_ a Nazi. The logical fallacy is that
    : >>>> his being a Nazi had some relation to the difficulty of going to the
    : >>>> Moon.
    : >>>
    : >>> That would be "begging the question" used correctly.
    : >>> < http://begthequestion.info >
    : >>
    : >> What wuold be "begging the question"? Claiming that von Braun was a
    : >> Nazi when there is no evidence to support that contention would be
    : >> "begging the question". Trivializing his technical achievements because
    : >> he was a Nazi is argumentum ad hominem.
    : >>
    : > As anyone can tell who reads my posts, it bothers me when people use
    : > words or terms incorrectly. A misuse grates on me much like a misuse
    : > of photography term grates on someone who understands how the word or
    : > term should be used.
    : >
    : > The term "begs the question" is one that I never use in any
    : > circumstances. I understand the meaning of the term, but far too many
    : > people don't. Too many people think that it means "that raises the
    : > question" and use it that way. That's wrong.
    :
    : I agree. It just rubs me the wrong way when I hear it used
    : incorrectly, especially by news anchors and morning show presenters. I
    : will attack the misuse. There is no valid reason for it to be spoken
    : other than to explain its origins in Socratic and medieval debate.
    :
    : > Because it is likely to be misunderstood by many, it's best avoided.
    : > At best, some readers will interpret it to mean "it raises the
    : > question" and some will interpret it to mean "a conclusion has been
    : > reached based on a faulty premise". It's never good to use a phrase
    : > or a word if a significant number of readers will misunderstand what
    : > you mean.
    :
    : I avoid "begs the question" like the plague. If I have to I will "raise
    : a question".
    : If I am compelled to challenge an incident where it can be recognised
    : in an argument, I would prefer to refer to it as a "circular argument"
    : and therefore a failure in logic.
    :
    : > "Ad hominem" is in the same linguistic boat. Some, who don't
    : > understand the meaning, will take it only to mean "an insult" or a
    : > derogatory comment about someone. Others will wonder "But how is that
    : > a diversionary ploy in rebuttal to that point?". It shouldn't be
    : > used. If someone wants to say "More insults!", let 'em say that.
    :
    : Yup!

    My college linguistics professor, Bernard Bloch (q.v.), used to tell us that
    "A language is the way people talk, not the way someone thinks they ought to
    talk." I don't know whether he originated the quip, but he was quite fond of
    repeating it.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 6, 2014
    #83
  4. android

    Tony Cooper Guest

    You went to Brown? Classy.
     
    Tony Cooper, Jan 6, 2014
    #84
  5. android

    Robert Coe Guest

    :
    : >My college linguistics professor, Bernard Bloch (q.v.), used to tell us that
    : >"A language is the way people talk, not the way someone thinks they ought to
    : >talk." I don't know whether he originated the quip, but he was quite fond of
    : >repeating it.
    : >
    : You went to Brown? Classy.

    Yale, actually. By that time Bloch was there.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 6, 2014
    #85
  6. android

    Tony Cooper Guest

    Some posters from sci.lang, the linguistics newsgroup, cross-post into
    a group I read. Bloch's been mentioned a few times.
     
    Tony Cooper, Jan 6, 2014
    #86
  7. android

    Sandman Guest

    Tony the troll keeps lying about my usage of the phrase "ad hominem". Such
    is the way of the troll.
    All that text and no content. Tony again fails simple logic.

    1. An ad hominem does not mean there was an insult.
    2. An insult does not mean there was an ad hominem.
    3. An insult can also be an ad hominem.
    4. I have used the phrase 100% correctly, in spite of Tony's lies.

    Dance away.
     
    Sandman, Jan 6, 2014
    #87
  8. android

    android Guest

    That's why it passed the typodetector.... Thanks for counting... The
    snipping was so severe that I, lazy boy, put the term on the clipboard!
    ;-P
     
    android, Jan 6, 2014
    #88
  9. android

    android Guest

    I've moved the files associated to this thread... Link in sig.
     
    android, Jan 6, 2014
    #89
  10. android

    Tony Cooper Guest

    File, as of today. A photograph of a camera.
     
    Tony Cooper, Jan 6, 2014
    #90
  11. android

    android Guest

    There are folders to be found on that link, as you could see...
     
    android, Jan 6, 2014
    #91
  12. android

    Tony Cooper Guest

    That's easy for you to say. Yes, now that I'm looking for folders I
    see what you mean. I've never seen that type of link before.

    Next time, don't put your link below your sig. You have a sig
    delimiter, and when Agent readers open your post anything below the
    delimiter is cut.

    Have you progressed to more tests of the camera? I'm looking forward
    to an image from you that I can be suitably impressed with. I have
    confidence in you.

    I don't know where you are located, and you might be in the Midwest
    (US) and unable to go outside without being nose-deep in snow, and
    that's why there are no more tests.
     
    Tony Cooper, Jan 6, 2014
    #92
  13. android

    Robert Coe Guest

    : In article <>,
    :
    : > : In article <>,
    : > :
    : > : >
    : > : > >In article <>,
    : > : > >
    : > : > >>
    : > : > >> >In article <>,
    : > : > >> >
    : > : > >> >>
    : > : > >> >> >In article <>,
    : > : > >> >> >
    : > : > >> >> >> rOn Thu, 02 Jan 2014 11:31:30 -0500, Tony Cooper
    : > : > >> >> >>
    : > : > >> >> >> >
    : > : > >> >> >> >>In article <>, Tony
    : > : > >> >> >> >>Cooper
    : > : > >> >> >> >>wrote:
    : > : > >> >> >> >>
    : > : > >> >> >> >>> > > > > Tony Cooper:
    : > : > >> >> >> >>> > > > > My only comment is "Why did you take it?".
    : > : > >> >> >> >>> > > >
    : > : > >> >> >> >>> > > > > Normally, I'd critique an image only if I see
    : > : > >> >> >> >>> > > > > something
    : > : > >> >> >> >>> > > > > good
    : > : > >> >> >> >>> > > > > and something that could be improved. I wouldn't
    : > : > >> >> >> >>> > > > > comment on
    : > : > >> >> >> >>> > > > > a photograph that has no redeeming value.
    : > : > >> >> >> >>> > > >
    : > : > >> >> >> >>> > > > > But, here you've invited comments and even said you
    : > : > >> >> >> >>> > > > > "worked"
    : > : > >> >> >> >>> > > > > on the post. I can't understand why you'd bother.
    : > : > >> >> >> >>> > > >
    : > : > >> >> >> >>> > > > > Surely, there was some interesting photographable
    : > : > >> >> >> >>> > > > > scene
    : > : > >> >> >> >>> > > > > around that day. The camera may have passed your
    : > : > >> >> >> >>> > > > > test,
    : > : > >> >> >> >>> > > > > but
    : > : > >> >> >> >>> > > > > the operator of the camera failed.
    : > : > >> >> >> >>> > > >
    : > : > >> >> >> >>> > > > Sandman:
    : > : > >> >> >> >>> > > > Tony in a nutshell. He just can't stop at "Why did
    : > : > >> >> >> >>> > > > you take it?", he has to lace the post with some
    : > : > >> >> >> >>> > > > personal
    : > : > >> >> >> >>> > > > insults as well. Why, otherwise he wouldn't be a
    : > : > >> >> >> >>> > > > troll, of
    : > : > >> >> >> >>> > > > course!
    : > : > >> >> >> >>> > >
    : > : > >> >> >> >>> > > Tony Cooper:
    : > : > >> >> >> >>> > > There's no insult to Android there.
    : > : > >> >> >> >>> >
    : > : > >> >> >> >>> > Sandman:
    : > : > >> >> >> >>> > Your grasp on the English language is as loose as always.
    : > : > >> >> >> >>>
    : > : > >> >> >> >>> You are commenting on personal aspects, and the rest of us
    : > : > >> >> >> >>> are
    : > : > >> >> >> >>> commenting on the photograph.
    : > : > >> >> >> >>
    : > : > >> >> >> >>> Who's the troll?
    : > : > >> >> >> >>
    : > : > >> >> >> >>You are.
    : > : > >> >> >> >>
    : > : > >> >> >> >> "but the operator of the camera failed."
    : > : > >> >> >> >>
    : > : > >> >> >> >>Ad hominem, when he wanted comments on the photograph. Typical
    : > : > >> >> >> >>Tony.
    : > : > >> >> >>
    : > : > >> >> >> That's not an ad hominem. It's a comment.
    : > : > >> >> >>
    : > : > >> >> >> Ad hominems are used in argument, not the conclusion.
    : > : > >> >> >>
    : > : > >> >> >> http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
    : > : > >> >> >> "In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal
    : > : > >> >> >> abuse.
    : > : > >> >> >> Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to
    : > : > >> >> >> undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker
    : > : > >> >> >> instead
    : > : > >> >> >> of
    : > : > >> >> >> addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal
    : > : > >> >> >> attack
    : > : > >> >> >> does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the
    : > : > >> >> >> purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical
    : > : > >> >> >> fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack
    : > : > >> >> >> someone;
    : > : > >> >> >> the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is
    : > : > >> >> >> also
    : > : > >> >> >> necessarily an attack on that person's arguments."
    : > : > >> >> >> >
    : > : > >> >> >> >An "ad hominem" comment is when there is an attempt to divert
    : > : > >> >> >> >the
    : > : > >> >> >> >discussion with a negative and irrelevant personal comment.
    : > : > >> >> >> >What
    : > : > >> >> >> >you
    : > : > >> >> >> >have done is an almost classic example of this.
    : > : > >> >> >> >
    : > : > >> >> >> >My comments were about the photograph, and extensively so, but
    : > : > >> >> >> >you
    : > : > >> >> >> >have snipped these to divert the discussion and included an
    : > : > >> >> >> >irrelevant
    : > : > >> >> >> >personal comment. Try looking up the term "ad hominem" so you
    : > : > >> >> >> >will
    : > : > >> >> >> >not embarrass yourself further.
    : > : > >> >> >> >
    : > : > >> >> >> >It's ironic for a post to contain both a comment about not
    : > : > >> >> >> >understanding a language and a misuse of language by the same
    : > : > >> >> >> >person.
    : > : > >> >> >
    : > : > >> >> >http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad hominem
    : > : > >> >> >
    : > : > >> >>
    : > : > >> >> Yes, that's a good, if succinct, definition. The key words in that
    : > : > >> >> definition are "rather than". In other words, instead of providing
    : > : > >> >> a
    : > : > >> >> rebuttal to an argument, the person who employs the ad hominem
    : > : > >> >> route
    : > : > >> >> attacks the person in order to divert the discussion.
    : > : > >> >>
    : > : > >> >> A response that legitimately addresses the point of contention, and
    : > : > >> >> also contains an insult, is not an ad hominem response.
    : > : > >> >
    : > : > >> >Webster:
    : > : > >> >Definition of AD HOMINEM
    : > : > >> >1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
    : > : > >> >2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather
    : > : > >> >than
    : > : > >> >by an answer to the contentions made
    : > : > >>
    : > : > >> These have that "rather than" again. The intellectual argument has
    : > : > >> been abandoned in favor of, or rather than, an attack to the emotions.
    : > : > >> For ad hominem to exist, there has to be a) a point of contention that
    : > : > >> calls for rebuttal, and b) an attempt to divert the discussion to
    : > : > >> something personal instead of, or rather than, providing a rebuttal.
    : > : > >>
    : > : > >> It's all about diversion. Instead of addressing your
    : > : > >> counter-argument, I'll call you names and divert the discussion to
    : > : > >> your character. That's an argumentum ad hominem.
    : > : > >
    : > : > >Now you've gone silly... The term comes from the latin and means
    : > : > >basically "personal attack". That's has not changed.
    : > : > >
    : > :
    : > : You snippet the
    : > :
    : > : >>EOD
    : >
    : > When you spell "snipped" wrong once, it's a typo and you get a pass. When you
    : > do it three times, you'd better go look it up. "Snippet" is an entirely
    : > different word and isn't even a verb.
    : >
    : > Bob
    :
    : That's why it passed the typodetector.... Thanks for counting... The
    : snipping was so severe that I, lazy boy, put the term on the clipboard!
    : ;-P

    Nice recovery. :^)

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 8, 2014
    #93
  14. android

    Tony Cooper Guest

    When I view the post, I can see the sig and what's below it. That's
    how I know the link is there. But, when I open the post to reply, the
    sig and link are dropped off.

    Someone said something about this being true of all decent
    newsreaders, but I can only determine what's true for the one I use.
    I'm not about to decide what's "decent" for others.
     
    Tony Cooper, Jan 9, 2014
    #94
  15. android

    android Guest

    As said link in sig. Thats because it's occasionally a part of it.
    I'm soo proud! ;-)
    I don't if or when further testing will be taken here... Time will tell.
    :)
     
    android, Jan 9, 2014
    #95
  16. android

    android Guest

    Thanks! :)
     
    android, Jan 9, 2014
    #96
  17. android

    android Guest

    Youp.... And sometimes one wants a link in the sig! I've grumbled myself
    over people with broken delimiters. Bad posters!
     
    android, Jan 9, 2014
    #97
  18. android

    android Guest

    That must be a configuration issue then. I thought that the client Agent
    was a compliant one.
     
    android, Jan 9, 2014
    #98
  19. android

    android Guest

    That should be the other way around. I know that you know couse you sig
    is correct. The above must be a typo.
     
    android, Jan 9, 2014
    #99
  20. android

    android Guest

    I got Eric wrong then... Sorry.
     
    android, Jan 9, 2014
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.