Gravity wheel of Mikhail Dmitriyev

[WilbyInebriated]

That is self-flattering, isn't it? Not the most modest thing to do, I guess.

The real problem, however, is that, as I said, you try to divert the real issue by creating some kind of non-existing issue between me and you, based on something that is a subject to interpretations. You hold on to one of the possible interpretations as the Gospel and try to impose it as the ultimate definition, especially allowing for ad hominem not always to be a fallacy. But it is, as I already explained earlier. Any form and nuance of ad hominem is a fallacy, despite what you think your frivolous definition says.

As for the real issue -- the Hamilton's equations -- equations which are obviously over your head, there's no room for interpretations there. That's the beauty of having a discussion with numbered equations. There's no leeway. And, because of that, dishonesty in a discussion is recognized at once, let alone incompetence, as in the case at hand.

well, you are known to guess a lot...

there is no "issue" between us omni... you said, and i quote:

Ad hominem attack is to start posting irrelevant links in response to criticism for incompetence.

this was, and still is, incorrect. had you simply said "accusing me of projection is a logical fallacy known as ad hominem", you would have been correct... but you didn't say that, so you were incorrect... and still are. capiche?

hamilton's equations are not the topic of the debate between you and i. please cease with repeating this red herring over and over. the incompetence is yours... not even knowing what an ad hominem is.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
"The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made). "

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/ad-hominem/
"It is important to note that the label “ad hominem” is ambiguous, and that not every kind of ad hominem argument is fallacious."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
"The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy,[2] but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.[3]"

i'll repeat my request that you post "the real meaning of ad hominem" for us less enlightened ones since you conveniently omitted that from your reply... furthermore, if you think the definition the whole world adheres to is frivolous and expect us to adhere to the 'omni definition', you will need to define how and why the existing definition is incorrect... as well as actually providing us with your definition.

[ramset]

W.
Quote:[of a quote]
"It is important to note that the label “ad hominem” is ambiguous, and that not every kind of ad hominem argument is fallacious."
----------------------------
Your bein Mean W
Stop pickin on The Buss ,Or I'll come over there and Poke you right in your  AdhomiNOSE.

Chetty

[WilbyInebriated]

W.
Quote:[of a quote]
"It is important to note that the label “ad hominem” is ambiguous, and that not every kind of ad hominem argument is fallacious."
----------------------------
Your bein Mean W
Stop pickin on The Buss ,Or I'll come over there and Poke you right in your  AdhomiNOSE.

Chetty

i'm not picking on the bus... i'm nipping his incompetence in the bud. ohhh chetty, i'm shaking. you know that's a logical fallacy don't you? argumentum ad baculum or appeal to force or fear.

@all, here is another of omni favorite logical fallacy tactics:

Argumentum ad nauseam

"This is the incorrect belief that an assertion is more likely to be true, or is more likely to be accepted as true, the more often it is heard. So an Argumentum ad Nauseam is one that employs constant repetition in asserting something; saying the same thing over and over again until you're sick of hearing it."

like his "spam" replies... or his "you're incompetent" replies... or his "don't post gibberish" replies... etc, ad nauseam...

[Omnibus]

The area of OU, being disliked by the powers that be, to put it mildly, is infested with agents, zealous activists and plain stupid people and paying attention to each and every irrelevant post they broadcast is a waste of time. Therefore, when spotting such elements the recourse is to signify it by just stating the obvious, namely, that they should not clog the thread with gibberish. Otherwise, you'll fall into playing their game getting into a regime of infinite explanations leading to nowhere. That's exactly what they want. So, cut them out and move on. Now, I paid a little more attention to you because I've seen some sensible posts by you in the past. You, however, lost the current argument and it's time to concede because there are really important things to discuss and further spending time on a lost argument is clearly a waste.

[WilbyInebriated]

The area of OU, being disliked by the powers that be, to put it mildly, is infested with agents, zealous activists and plain stupid people and paying attention to each and every irrelevant post they broadcast is a waste of time. Therefore, when spotting such elements the recourse is to signify it by just stating the obvious, namely, that they should not clog the thread with gibberish. Otherwise, you'll fall into playing their game getting into a regime of infinite explanations leading to nowhere. That's exactly what they want. So, cut them out and move on. Now, I paid a little more attention to you because I've seen some sensible posts by you in the past. You, however, lost the current argument and it's time to concede because there are really important things to discuss and further spending time on a lost argument is clearly a waste.

i've lost nothing other than my precious time trying to explain logical fallacies to you... furthermore, i've repeatedly pointed out your error, to which you have provided no cogent rebuttal. in point of fact, the record shows you trying to divert the discussion of your error by use of logical fallacies (red herring, strawman, etc.). it's time you concede you were in error and move on. hopefully you can refrain from using fallacies as your response in the future, but to be quite honest, i doubt it.

i'll repeat my request that you post "the real meaning of ad hominem" for us less enlightened ones since you conveniently omitted that from your reply... AGAIN. furthermore, if you think the definition the whole world adheres to is frivolous and expect us to adhere to the 'omni definition', you will need to define how and why the existing definition is incorrect... as well as actually providing us with your definition.