<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
Phil et. al.<BR>
<BR>
My comments on the definition of "argument ad hominem" were not aimed at your writing regarding Mr. Paul's thesis on religion's effects on various nations, but were general comments on the climate of discussion and debate in society in general, offered as an after thought, as I answered chasuk@gmail.com's question about the Latin phrase he was seeking, that describes an attack on the "reputation" of a thinker rather than "the substance," as chasuk@gmail.com phrased it in the quote below.<BR>
<BR>
Perhaps chasuk@gmail.com might answer your specific questions regarding the complexities involved in the use of argument ad hominem, considering that he recently introduced this idea, without using the Latin phrase "ad hominem," or indicating on Vision2020 that this was/is the Latin phrase he was looking for. I should hesitate to declare he introduced the idea of "argument ad hominem," since chasuk@gmail.com has not agreed, that I have found on Vision2020, that this is indeed the Latin phrase he was looking for.<BR>
<BR>
chasuk@gmail.com wrote on 10/1/05:<BR>
<BR>
My first comment about this thread, formed as a question: does anyone<BR>
else find this sort of sniping childish, and more than a little bit<BR>
tiresome? My second comment: would you kindly attack the substance of<BR>
Mr. Paul's study, rather than his reputation? I don't remember the<BR>
Latin which describes this type of fallacious logic; maybe Nick can<BR>
help me out here.<BR>
---------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Ted Moffett<BR>
</FONT></HTML>