----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@... net>
To: "Patrick Ryan" <cybalist@... s.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2008 3:05 PM
Subject: Re[2]: [tied] Re: Scientist's etymology vs. scientific etymology
> At 3:46:43 PM on Sunday, June 8, 2008, Patrick Ryan wrote:
>
> > From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@... net>
>
> >> At 6:28:09 AM on Sunday, June 8, 2008, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> >>> --- In cybalist@... s.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> >>> <BMScott@... > wrote:
>
> >> [...]
>
>
>>>> I think that his idée fixe has taken him at least to the
> >>>> edge of crackpot territory.
>
> >>> And that is an ad hominem too.
>
> >> <shrug> Obviously you don't know what the term means.
>
> > No, Brian, it is obvious that you do not.
>
> If you intend to use the term, I suggest that you repair the
> gap in your knowledge. A negative judgement of someone's
> work or ideas, even a strongly negative one, is not an ad
> hominem.
>
> > Perhaps because you do not know what ad hominem's are, you
> > use them so frequently. You include an insult with almost
> > everything you write.
>
> > How sad not to even be aware of how offensive you are!
>
> Oh, dear. The irony, the irony.
>
> Brian
***
Patrick:
I thought as much. You are actually
ignorant of what ad hominem means!
When you characterize someone as having an idée fixe, that is an aspersion
against his intelligence and objectivity not against his work or the quality
thereof.
In fact, ad hominem is an attack on material by belittling its provider.
***
****GK: Not quite. Everything must be taken in context. That's why one needs "esprit de finesse". Everything depends on the quality of the "idee fixe". I, for instance, have an "idee fixe" that 2+2=4. ****