Re: Why did they bother...
What you say here, of course, is perfectly reasonable. Ad Hominem attacks are, generally, bad form in argument. You have successfully identified and warned about the use of an informal fallacy.
No, we don't have to call this "ad hominem," but this is the appropriate label. Sure would be odd for someone to outlaw using this term. It would almost seem like an attack on reason itself to outlaw reference to words which point out common errors in reasoning, wouldn't it?
You're lecturing again.
Something wrong with his asking for clarification?
This is at least the second poster in the last week that you seem to have gone after -- and yes, I'm using that phrase very deliberately this time, after our PMs on the last one -- when they're really only guilty of being articulate while stating a position that goes against the popular view.
All the while allowing to pass w/o comment most of the snipes and unsupported declarations of dismissal from the other side, just as this board has done for well over a decade now.
Is there really some payoff -- no, let me use the word gain -- from actively attempting to decrease
the level of intelligent discourse here?
You were told here
that if you argued another mod action in a thread instead of taking it to the MA forum (after PMing the mod in question first) that you would receive a warning.
Infraction, filed under OTHER
. Comments to PM.
'First Contact' is the tale of a man who just wants to cash in on his creation so he can get wasted on an island full of naked women, but his fans keep insisting that he's a saintly visionary who has profoundly altered the world. AKA - 'I Don't Want to be a Statue: The Gene Roddenberry Story.'