Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

Ian wrote:
> At 06.30 17/02/00 -0700, Dave Washburn wrote:
> >> At 23.59 15/02/00 -0500, Peter Kirk wrote:
> >> >Have you read how Rohl to deals with the falsification (I assume you 
> >> >mean of his cnronology rather than of the standard one), which is in 
> >> >his appendix? Rohl is not irrelevant as he attempts to do just what 
> >> >you ask "one" to do. He may or may not be successful, you have no way 
> >> >to tell until you READ THE MATERIAL!!!
> >> 
> >> There is no point, if the thesis has been falsified. How many times do 
> >> you
> >> want the basic ages in chaos theory falsified, Peter? I don't care if it 
> >> is
> >> Rohl, Velikovsky, James, Bimson, or anyone else. If the basic idea don't
> >> work, it don't work, no matter how loud you or Rohl cry, "READ THE
> >> MATERIAL!!!"
> >
> >Peter, if this doesn't make it clear that Ian just doesn't get it, 
> >then nothing will.  
> 
> Ad hominem #1

No, ad viewpoint, ad refusal to actually engage the material.

> >I suspect you and I have better things to do than put 
> >up with this kind of drivel.  
> 
> Ad hominem #2

No, ad comments.

> >Ian's approach is "I already know 
> >everything so don't confuse me" 
> 
> Ad hominem #3

No, ad reduction of comments to their bare essentials.

> >and that's obviously where his 
> >comfort zone is.  
> 
> Ad hominem #4

How is this ad hominem?  Once again, this is ad viewpoint.  It's 
also a continuation of the previous sentence, so splitting it in two 
like this is incorrect.

> >He's not going to read the material, he would 
> >rather tout his ignorance.  
> 
> Ad hominem #5

No, ad comments and ad attitude clearly reflected and stated in 
numerous posts.

> >Fine, I suggest that we let him and get 
> >on to discussing things with actual scholars.
> 
> Ad hominem #6

No, ad approach and attitude again.  It would seem that some 
definitions of "ad hominem" are out of sync with the commonly 
accepted ones.

> This post from Dave Washburn is nothing but a flame. There is *no* attempt
> to further the discussion at all.

There is no flame here.  It is a summary statement of one POV 
within the discussion, nothing more.

> Could the moderators please do something about it? In the past when I
> responded to this sort of stuff I was the one put on moderated posting, so
> naturally I won't give Dave the response he deserves.

Hmm, one list resorts to moderated posting, another resorts to 
unsubscribing.  So it would seem it's not just this list.  Something 
to think about, perhaps.

[snip]
> I think someone should withhold his pocket money for a few days.

Now *that's* an ad hominem  But I'll let it pass, and per Lewis' 
request I will not respond again.


Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
Teach me your way, O Lord, and I will walk in your truth;
give me an undivided heart that I may fear your name.
                                   Psalm 86:11