Oct. 28 word of the day from Merriam-Webster: ad hominem

[Steve Bonine]

ad hominem\ad-HAH-muh-nem\

adjective

1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect

2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than
by an answer to the contentions made

Examples:

The governor's only response to the criticism of his new policy was to
launch an ad hominem attack against those doing the criticizing.

"This democratization of the online media comment world results in both
a lot of angry, nasty and downright insulting ad hominem attacks,
followed quickly by ad hominem attacks by email commentators on each
other that make for salty and entertaining, if not particularly
edifying, reading." — From an editorial by Richard Hermann in the Daily
Messenger (Canandaigua, New York), August 30, 2012


"Ad hominem" literally means "to the person" in New Latin (Latin as
first used in post-medieval texts). In centuries past, this adjective
usually modified "argument." An "argument ad hominem" (or "argumentum ad
hominem," to use the full New Latin phrase) was a valid method of
persuasion by which a person took advantage of his or her opponent's
interests or feelings in a debate, instead of just sticking to general
principles. The newer sense of "ad hominem," which suggests an attack on
an opponent's character instead of his or her argument, appeared only in
the last century, but it is the sense more often heard today. The word
still refers to putting personal issues above other matters, but perhaps
because of its old association with "argument," "ad hominem" has become,
in effect, "against the person."

[Adam H. Kerman]

Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:

>ad hominem\ad-HAH-muh-nem\

Thanks for trolling news.groups, Steve.

How is it that you're qualified to be a moderator again given your
personality and posting habits?

[Steve Bonine]

On 10/28/12 3:52 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> ad hominem\ad-HAH-muh-nem\
>
> Thanks for trolling news.groups, Steve.

I rather think it was spot on target here.

> How is it that you're qualified to be a moderator again given your
> personality and posting habits?

I figured you would give us an example of the word usage, Adam. Thanks
for your help. I know it was a struggle to find this article and
respond to it, given the crushing volume lately in news.groups.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>On 10/28/12 3:52 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:

>>>ad hominem\ad-HAH-muh-nem\

>>Thanks for trolling news.groups, Steve.

>I rather think it was spot on target here.

There haven't been any on-topic posts here in weeks, Steve. An on-topic
article might have been nice rather than a troll.

>>How is it that you're qualified to be a moderator again given your
>>personality and posting habits?

>I figured you would give us an example of the word usage, Adam. Thanks
>for your help. I know it was a struggle to find this article and
>respond to it, given the crushing volume lately in news.groups.

What ad hominem attack upon yourself were you trolling for? Tell us and
perhaps I'll obliged if it's terribly clever.

[Steve Bonine]

On 10/28/12 7:36 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> On 10/28/12 3:52 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>>>> ad hominem\ad-HAH-muh-nem\
>
>>> Thanks for trolling news.groups, Steve.
>
>> I rather think it was spot on target here.
>
> There haven't been any on-topic posts here in weeks, Steve. An on-topic
> article might have been nice rather than a troll.

Notice that I said "on target", not "on topic". As you continue to
demonstrate, a discussion of ad hominem attacks is just the thing for
news.groups.

My experience with contriving on-topic material to try to revive a
newsgroup has consistently been negative. Of course, if you're really
desperate for a discussion about newsgroups, perhaps you could contrive
one yourself.

It's dead, Jim.

>>> How is it that you're qualified to be a moderator again given your
>>> personality and posting habits?
>
>> I figured you would give us an example of the word usage, Adam. Thanks
>> for your help. I know it was a struggle to find this article and
>> respond to it, given the crushing volume lately in news.groups.
>
> What ad hominem attack upon yourself were you trolling for? Tell us and
> perhaps I'll obliged if it's terribly clever.

I cannot in my wildest dreams imagine saying anything that you would
consider "terribly clever".

If you consider my original article a troll, then your response puts you
squarely in the category of people who feed trolls.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>On 10/28/12 7:36 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>On 10/28/12 3:52 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:

>>>>>ad hominem\ad-HAH-muh-nem\

>>>>Thanks for trolling news.groups, Steve.

>>>I rather think it was spot on target here.

>>There haven't been any on-topic posts here in weeks, Steve. An on-topic
>>article might have been nice rather than a troll.

>Notice that I said "on target", not "on topic". As you continue to
>demonstrate, a discussion of ad hominem attacks is just the thing for
>news.groups.

>My experience with contriving on-topic material to try to revive a
>newsgroup has consistently been negative. Of course, if you're really
>desperate for a discussion about newsgroups, perhaps you could contrive
>one yourself.

>It's dead, Jim.

Does anyone care about your heroic efforts to revive a newsgroup that
doesn't require saving?

>>>>How is it that you're qualified to be a moderator again given your
>>>>personality and posting habits?

>>>I figured you would give us an example of the word usage, Adam. Thanks
>>>for your help. I know it was a struggle to find this article and
>>>respond to it, given the crushing volume lately in news.groups.

>>What ad hominem attack upon yourself were you trolling for? Tell us and
>>perhaps I'll obliged if it's terribly clever.

>I cannot in my wildest dreams imagine saying anything that you would
>consider "terribly clever".

>If you consider my original article a troll, then your response puts you
>squarely in the category of people who feed trolls.

Why, each and every time I've ever followed up to you, Steve.

[Ian Clifton]

Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> writes:

[...]

> My experience with contriving on-topic material to try to revive a
> newsgroup has consistently been negative. Of course, if you're really
> desperate for a discussion about newsgroups, perhaps you could
> contrive one yourself.

A homeopathist would claim that the way to revive a newsgroup is with a
tiny amount of intensely boring material diluted with enormous amounts
of meaningless guff. What is, after all, a newsgroup? Is it news about a
group? Or is it, as others claim, a group of news?

Why do you say?

I don't know. I suppose I'm just trying to spew out some pointless text.

Is it because of your plans that you say?

No, I don't have a plan.

Maybe your life has something to do with this.

You could be on to something there, Doc.

What makes you believe?

That they are all out to get me? I just think that
they are all out to get me.

Can you elaborate on that?

I could, but—you know, the idea is, this isn’t supposed to be such
hard work. Your endless questions are making me do much more typing
than I hoped I could get away with.

I would appreciate it if you would continue.

Maybe, but our readers wouldn’t, I’m beginning to suspect.

Go on, don't be afraid.

Have you ever seen a man with as many ears as noses?

What do you think?

I think you have, but you’re not admitting it. Go on, spill the beans.

I need a little more detail please.

That's your defence mechanism, isn’t it? Deflect every enquiry with a
question of your own.

Is it because of the people you hang around with that you say?

Yes, it certainly is.

Perhaps problems at school have something to do with this.

I'm sure you’re right, but I think that’s enough for now. According to
theory, this is the start of a really compelling thread. Bye bye!

You're being a bit brief, perhaps you could go into detail.

No.

Can you are more explicit?

> It's dead, Jim.

…and never called me Mother.

--
Ian ◎