Quote:
Originally posted by smooth
j8ear, I quoted you along with two other posters and followed your assertions with a quote from the study. There doesn't seem to be anything for me to lighten up about--evidently the study's conclusions touched a nerve.
|
I MADE absolutely zero assertions about the validity of the study...ZERO.
I will not debate the definition of ad hominem fallacies or grammer with you. I will inform you that ad hominem is attacking the character of your opponent. The study of your opponent or the author of your opponent's study is another fallacy all together. Pointing out the fallaciousness of someone's arguement is not ad hominem (even if sarcastically so). Sorry.
As for grammatical errors. I am an english as a second language cat and quite proud of what i am able to do with this convaluted language, thank you.
I asserted that adding UofM and Stanford to a statement the concludes unbiased is rediculous. I stand by that assertion, and challenge you to refute it. The fact that the study is published at Berkley's web site...does not make it biased. The fact that it's researchers include staff from Stanford and the UofM does not make it unbiased.
I still suggest you lighten up. I am not attcking anyone. I am poking fun at the methods used to draw conclusions in this thread. It's all light hearted to me. Please don't take it personally.
Read my original posting re: this thread...see if you still think it ~touched~ a nerve. I conceded when challenged, and questioned when unclear. Nothing more.
peace and good will to all, especially you smooth
-bear-