rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (03/01/84)
Apparently, David Norris either has recently read a book on formal logic or has conversed with someone fluent in the subject. In either case, he has emerged from the endeavor with a plethora of phrases designed to amaze and astound us. What David apparently fails to realize is that use of formal logic terminology does not in and of itself make an argument hold water. But, I guess one should remember that this comes from someone who simply holds that the Bible and God are because they are, and would probably hold similar mystical views of logic. :-) David is fond of using the term "ad hominem" argument, and is quick to accuse anyone who disagrees with him of using this tactic. This has included people (myself and others) who have stated that his articles did not contain anything substantial. This, to David, is an ad hominem attack. I guess he feels that they did contain something substantial, else why would he complain? When asked to substantiate that which was considered (by him) substantial, we seem to see more of the same. He is very quick to utter phrases like "hasty generalization" and "argumentum ad nauseum" (:-). Is this an example of speaking in tongues? Obviously David does not understand the words he is saying. :-) He was very quick to accuse me of these tactics in relation to my article about the person in the Chicago area who misspelled Satan several times despite the fact that he was following up an article with the correct spelling in the title!! David accused me of generalizing and assuming (?) things about this person. Such as 1) he is a follower of an evangelist [the man has posted articles about his evangelist friend being moved to stay another week for several weeks now!!!!], 2) he does not/has not read the Bible [the word Satan was in the title of the article he was following up, so there is no excuse there; dyslexia does not have such vowel substitutions as a symptom], and 3) he is an idiot [which I never said, though it was possibly implied by that paragraph; misspelling Satan does not make one an idiot, but it says something about the person's knowledge about the subject being discussed]. I don't call such statements "assuming" when they are backed up by facts. I carefully chose to make NO generalizations about this person on my own (the remark about "open wallets", as I mentioned, came from someone else's article; I *do* agree with it, though). There hasn't been a lot said in this article related to the original topic at hand. But I think this is justified when one sees articles by Mr. Norris that consist of misquoting other people's statements and labelling them with convenient Latin phrases to make a non-existent point. Others have already pointed out the thin thread by which David's version of formal logic hangs. (Probably better than I did.) The point is: yes, this attack on a person's logical methods is a waste of time, but if he continues to put forth articles whose non-content consists of evading the question, what are we to do? Let's get back to discussions that are relevant to the newsgroup and be sure to support our arguments and tear down others' through logical thought instead of catchphrases. It appears that the issue of one man's version of logic is a moot point. [David: if you really want to see an ad hominem attack, here goes--- You're a world champion bozo with brains like peanut butter!! Note that this is just an example, and is not intended to be meant for you or any individual. Just thought you might like to see what ones looks like, as contrasted with an attack on your argumentative methodologies. If you want to discuss your point of view, let's do so in a rational manner, without resorting to the use of bogus phraseology and quoting out of context. Being logical means more than just use of the logician's terminology.] -- Pardon me for breathing, which I never do anyway oh, god, I'm so depressed... Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr