Gravity wheel of Mikhail Dmitriyev

[WilbyInebriated]

You're confirming exactly the point I made -- you "don't give a rat's ass about hamilton". And you should. Because that's the issue.

no i am confirming no such thing. and no i shouldn't. and no that IS NOT the issue i have with you as i have stated repeatedly. it may be the issue between you and someone else, but not me. once again since you can't seem to comprehend, 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 are incorrect... capiche?

As to whether or not you ignore the real meaning of ad hominem, as you do, that's secondary. I disagree that something written in a random link can serve as a set-in-stone definition of ad hominem, you take it as the Gospel. It's your choice but keep it for your own use, don't impose it on others. I should nip in the bud this desire of yours to impose frivolous definitions you've adopted as the Gospel to be shoved down the throat of others.

i'll ignore the fallacies in your statement and simply request that you post "the real meaning of ad hominem" for us less enlightened ones... furthermore, if you think the definition the whole world adheres to is frivolous, define how and why...

In science, however, logic is merciless and there cannot be dubiousness about notions such as Hamilton's equations. There cannot be varying opinions about what they are about and what they really show. Do you get the difference? Now, I know that because of your weakness in the scientific issues you're reluctant to address them directly and are trying to sway the discussion into the grey areas of somewhat more amorphous notions prone to interpretations. That's, of course, intellectual dishonesty in a discussion such as this and that is also a destructive behavior.

denied. logical fallacy known as a red herring. you and i are not debating hamilton's equations. in point of fact, i have not brought up hamilton whatsoever other than to explain his irrelevance to this argument you and i are having. your continued attempts to bring him into this argument is just more logical fallacy from you and smacks of intellectual dishonesty.

[ramset]

HHMMMmmmmmmm................
This one is very hard to score?
Chet

[WilbyInebriated]

HHMMMmmmmmmm................
This one is very hard to score?
Chet

LMFAO!!!!
are you serious chet? omni couldn't even debate a 5th grader effectively...

he would still be posting "spam" as a response to every post he disagreed with had harti not warned him...

[ramset]

Well ,
You do have him on very soft ground!
"ad hominem"

Chet

[Omnibus]

LMFAO!!!!
are you serious chet? omni couldn't even debate a 5th grader effectively...

he would still be posting "spam" as a response to every post he disagreed with had harti not warned him...

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.