Quote:
Originally posted by Lebell
Thank you for straightening me out on the definition of 'Strawman' smooth. Now, will you read it yourself and apply it correctly?
Liquor Dealer did not use a strawman. You tweaked his nose and then he didn't care for it, regardless of the qualifiers you choose to put on it. So when he brought it up, you attacked him again, this time using the ad hominim attack "Strawman". I called you on it and you didn't like that either, so here we are.
|
I'm not applying it correctly?
Here's the original post:
Irregardless
Quote:
|
Thus, logically, "irregardless" falls into the same category of multinegative words as "irreligionless" and "unambitionless" - words whose components are coherent and unassailable but run at cross purposes. We are not unmindful (though by no means not unmindless) that constructions involving the negation of a negative are not unacceptable in English, but it is perhaps not inapposite to point out that the stacked negatives produce unmeaningless results only if we allow all elements in the compounded expression to participate in the anti-unmaking of its sense. Regrettably, Webster's Tenth chooses to be irregardful of the logic issue.
|
followed by this post:
Quote:
Oops, meant to put a big  !
Mea culpa, LD, the devil made me do it  .
|
How can you possibly construe that to be:
a) an attack against one's level of education
and
b) an attack against one's character?
LD's claim that I was attacking his level of education by this post is a straw man--I never stated nor insinuated that he lacked education.
edit:
using it correctly:
LD: blah, blah,...irregardless...blah, blah...
Smooth: Irregardless is a funny word...look here at this funny definition.
LD: now I can't use irregardless because Smooth ridiculed my level of education.
Smooth: Huh, I never said that. Why resort to a straw man?
Lebell: Look, Smooth is attacking LD's character. Here Smooth, let me teach you about logic from a website.
Smooth: What are you talking about?
Lebell: This is a dead horse!