Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

At 10.24 19/02/00 -0700, Dave Washburn wrote:
>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.

If "ad hominem" usually means "personal attack (as against dealing with
arguments)", 1) you have never dealt with the argument at hand, 2) your
statement is a personal attack, not viewpoint. I will repeat one of the
questions I have asked you a number of times in various forms: if you have
complaints about my criticisms of the Rohlian ages in chaos materials, what
exactly are they? If you cannot answer this simple question, then there is
no way that you can claim that I don't engage the material.

What I do find is no evidence that you are  prepare to even look at the
mainstream literature.

>> >I suspect you and I have better things to do than put 
>> >up with this kind of drivel.  
>> 
>> Ad hominem #2
>
>No, ad comments.

"Drivel" is ad hominem. You mightn't like the term, but you are guilty of
ordinary flaming. Why not simply admit it?

>> >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.

Plain flame. They should throw you off.

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

Read it in conjunction with ya previous deep statement there, Dave.

>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.

I note that you still don't defend the rubbish you have touted. You just
flame. You think that you can hide behind one book ignoring all the
scholarly work in the area that your guy meddles in and at the same time
talk about ignorance.

>> >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.  

Dave I think they should throw you off. You have the gall to try and say
you are not flaming. Don't be ridiculous. The post added nothing but
personal attack. Try and parse Ad hominem #6 so that it is not a personal
attack.

>It would seem that some 
>definitions of "ad hominem" are out of sync with the commonly 
>accepted ones.

Come again?

>> 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.

Yeah, blatant flamers like you are usually ejected from serious lists.

>[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.

Cute.

Could the moderators please throw this guy off the list. He flames and
thinks it's ok. 


Ian