06-23-2003, 05:23 PM
Hi,
You are explaining the semantics of your sentence.
No, I was explaining the *grammar* of my sentence. Semantics had nothing to do with it, both Ghostiger and I agreed on the terms and concepts used.
You want to start pulling out argumental and logical fallicies, let's start with your ad hominem arguments. Most of the time you comment on the apparent stupidity or idiocy of the poster and not the issue at hand.
Ad hominem attacks are invalid in reply to a argument. If there was no argument presented, simply a bland and incorrect statement, there can be no counter argument other than "that was nonsense". Most of the time in those cases the stupidity (or, more often the ignorance) of the poster *is* the main issue at hand. For instance, your ignorance and misuse of "semantics" was the sum and substance of your post and my reply.
--Pete
You are explaining the semantics of your sentence.
No, I was explaining the *grammar* of my sentence. Semantics had nothing to do with it, both Ghostiger and I agreed on the terms and concepts used.
You want to start pulling out argumental and logical fallicies, let's start with your ad hominem arguments. Most of the time you comment on the apparent stupidity or idiocy of the poster and not the issue at hand.
Ad hominem attacks are invalid in reply to a argument. If there was no argument presented, simply a bland and incorrect statement, there can be no counter argument other than "that was nonsense". Most of the time in those cases the stupidity (or, more often the ignorance) of the poster *is* the main issue at hand. For instance, your ignorance and misuse of "semantics" was the sum and substance of your post and my reply.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?