(August 10, 2010 at 3:38 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Irrelevant as it may be; it isn't grounds for an ad hominem. If it's irrelevant, don't comment on it.
ok
(August 10, 2010 at 3:38 pm)Tiberius Wrote: No it wouldn't. At no point does he insinuate that the asserted "intellectual bankruptcy" of Jason Lisle has any affect on the validity of his argument. Instead, he points to the illogical nature of the argument Jason uses.
Except that none of what Welsh said was directed to the questions I raised. So maybe it is an ad hominem via implication, i.e., maybe he is implying that because of Jason's alleged "intellectual bankrupcy" in one area, why listen to what he says in this other paper. One could also possibly make such an argument relative to Void's comments also.
Anyway, I see no need to push this "ad hominem" issue any further as it gets me no closer to an answer to my original questions.
