Can we refocus on the issues at hand?

[Michael Hall]

Look, regardless of definitions, can we all just stop this? There are
good things to be done and great things to be made, and that won't
happen if all we're doing is criticizing or trying to win an argument.

Michael Hall
mhall119 at ubuntu.com

On 09/16/2015 01:57 PM, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> Sorry, I trust the definition Wikipedia, Webster and the Oxford
> definition provide versus some random site but that
> site essentially says the same as wikipedia just with different
> storytelling. 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Simos Xenitellis
> <simos.lists at googlemail.com <mailto:simos.lists at googlemail.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
>     On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 8:14 PM, Benjamin Kerensa
>     <bkerensa at ubuntu.com <mailto:bkerensa at ubuntu.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
>         On Sep 16, 2015 10:06 AM, "Simos Xenitellis"
>         <simos.lists at googlemail.com <mailto:simos.lists at googlemail.com>>
>         wrote:
>         >
>         >
>         > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Benjamin Kerensa <bkerensa at ubuntu.com <mailto:bkerensa at ubuntu.com>> wrote:
>         >>
>         >> The ad hominem attack is strong in you today.
>         >
>         > An "ad hominem" attack is when you debate someone and call them "fat", "bald" or anything disparaging but irrelevant to the discussion.
>         > If you call "ad hominem", then in your reply you need to highlight the exact issue.
>         >
> 
>         From Wikipedia:
>         An */ad hominem/* (Latin
>         <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin> for "to the man" or "to
>         the person"^[1]
>         <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#cite_note-1>), short
>         for */argumentum ad hominem/*, means responding to arguments by
>         attacking a person's character, rather than addressing the
>         content of their arguments.
> 
>         This is exactly what Jorge did because instead of addressing the
>         matter at hand he made attacks against my character not
>         addressing the content of the argument.
> 
>         Mind you if you look to the list everyone was upset so no of
>         course he not discuss that content but launched into ad hominem.
> 
>         I even politely sent him a private email and his response there
>         was very rude too.
> 
>     "Ad hominem" is a bit more nuanced than that.
>     See https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem and the listed example.
>     The reference to you is about the frequent ragequits. Do you
>     consider that as ad hominen? It is not.
>     An ad hominem would be if he said you are the guy that puts ice
>     cubes in the beer.
> 
>     Simos
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> /*Benjamin Kerensa*/
> /http://benjaminkerensa.com/
> /"I am what I am because of who we all are" - Ubuntu/
> 
>