IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.
You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it.
> I think it is very simple - the ad hominem argument is one designed to > appeal to people's sensitivities, as opposed to strict logic. It is of > course frequently used when there is no good logical argument but there > may be. Marx is saying even if you don't follow my logic the facts > themselves cry out that there is something amiss. Hi Chris (and Mike L and Hans): This makes sense to me. Could the 'ad hominem argument' then be thought of as being an example of vorstellung? In solidarity, Jerry
- [OPE-L] Fwd: [PEN-L] an ad hominem response, michael a. lebowitz Fri 14 Apr 2006, 23:26 GMT
- [OPE-L] Fwd: [PEN-L] an ad hominem response, Hans G. Ehrbar Sat 15 Apr 2006, 00:15 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Fwd: [PEN-L] an ad hominem response, michael a. lebowitz Sat 15 Apr 2006, 13:25 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Fwd: [PEN-L] an ad hominem response, Christopher Arthur Sat 15 Apr 2006, 15:20 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] an ad hominem response, glevy Sat 15 Apr 2006, 16:16 GMT
- [OPE-L] Fwd: [PEN-L] an ad hominem response, Hans G. Ehrbar Sat 15 Apr 2006, 15:56 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Fwd: [PEN-L] an ad hominem response, michael a. lebowitz Sat 15 Apr 2006, 20:06 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] an ad hominem response, glevy Sun 16 Apr 2006, 15:21 GMT
- Message not available
- Re: [OPE-L] an ad hominem response, michael a. lebowitz Sun 16 Apr 2006, 18:49 GMT