Gravity wheel of Mikhail Dmitriyev

[WilbyInebriated]

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

incorrect, that would be a different logical fallacy. one known as a red herring...   omni, do yourself (and us) a favor and don't get all pretentious about things (logic) you are ignorant of.

now, don't get your panties in a bunch omni, i'm just nipping your incompetence in the bud...

[Omnibus]

It's pretty hard to argue with someone who thinks they know everything. He tries to come across as a professional scientific person. But if you question anything he says or disagree with him, he tells you that you are incompetent or cluttering up the thread.

We have seen his type here before. He sort of acts like IST. Every time he was questioned all he came back with was his I know and you don't attitude or, it's too complicated for you to understand.

Omnibus is the same. He throws in a few latin phrases to sound like an intellectual, but it's the same old shit.

You can only talk like this if you had any arguments regarding the issue which started the attack at me. Everybody sees that you're not addressing that issue and are only siding with the attacker to continue the ad hominem. That should stop. Ignorance and incompetence, let alone frivolous attacks such as yours should not rule even in a free forum such as this one.

[Omnibus]

incorrect, that would be a different logical fallacy. one known as a red herring...   omni, do yourself (and us) a favor and don't get all pretentious about things (logic) you are ignorant of.

now, don't get your panties in a bunch omni, i'm just nipping your incompetence in the bud...

You too should stop misusing logical terminology to assist in ad hominem attacks at me. You should know that relying on winning by numbers (that is, many incompetent attackers gathering together to hound someone's scientific argument) can only be seemingly successful if you don't address the issue with correct scientific arguments.

The issue is the inherent inability of classical mechanics to account for its own principle for conservation of energy and someone intervening with his incompetence to challenge that. The incompetence of that someone consists in his misunderstanding of Hamilton's equations in classical mechanics. It is not the first time that person demonstrates his incompetence in these matters wrapping it up in quasi-scientific talk about reference frames. Talk like that should be immediately confronted for the sake of those who really care about correct scientific arguments. That person was told more than once to restrain from obfuscating the issue by inappropriately intervening with his confused understanding of reference frames but he refuses to stop  and one conclusion, in addition to his demonstrating bad manners, is that he deliberately tries to destroy reasonable argumentation leading to scientific justification of overunity. Those who are siding with him in his ad hominem attacks but don't quite understand the essence of scientific argument should know that in doing so they are assisting in the destruction of this forum and the progressive ideas it is trying to promote. The best these individuals should do is restrain from getting into the crossfire. I know that not everyone here is a scientist and there may be other motivations for siding with this or that participant. In this particular case the issue is pretty serious and the mentioned individual is quite destructive (although in a passive aggressive way) to take his actions lightly.

[WilbyInebriated]

You too should stop misusing logic to assist in ad hominem attacks at me. You should know that relying on winning by numbers (that is, many incompetent attackers gathering together to hound someone's scientific argument) can only be seemingly successful if you don't address the issue with correct scientific arguments.

The issue is the inherent inability of classical mechanics to account for its own principle for conservation of energy and someone intervening with his incompetence to chalenge that. The incompetence of that someone consists in his misunderstanding of Hamilton's equations in classical mechanics. It is not the first time that person demonstrates his incompetence in these matters wrapping it up in quasi-scientific talk about reference frames. Talk like this should be immediately confronted for the sake of those who really care about correct scientific arguments. That person was told more than once to restrain from obfuscating the issue by inappropriately intervening with his confused understanding of reference frames but he refuses to stop  and one conclusion, in addition to his demonstrating bad manners, is that he deliberately tries to destroy reasonable argumentation leading to scientific justification of overunity. Those who are siding with him in his ad hominem attacks but don't quite understand the essence of scientific argument should know that in doing so they are assisting the destruction of this forum and the progressive ideas it is trying to promote. The best these individuals should do is restrain from getting into the crossfire. I know that not everyone here is a scientist and there may be other motivations for siding with this or that participant. In this particular case the issue is pretty serious and the mentioned individual is quite destructive (although in a passive aggressive way) to take his actions lightly.

see, there you go... omni, as i stated in my previous post, i was simply nipping your incompetence in the bud. posting an irrelevant link is a red herring. ad hominem has qualifications and is not always a fallacy...
why don't you actually read, comprehend and get a handle on what the various fallacies are before you start tossing out incorrect pretentious essays?

i've included a little information on what ad hominem is below for your lazy convenience omni...

Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man"; there are two varieties.

The first is the abusive form. If you refuse to accept a statement, and justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem. For example:

"You claim that atheists can be moral--yet I happen to know that you abandoned your wife and children."

This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it. A less blatant argumentum ad hominem is to reject a proposition based on the fact that it was also asserted by some other easily criticized person. For example:

"Therefore we should close down the church? Hitler and Stalin would have agreed with you."

A second form of argumentum ad hominem is to try and persuade someone to accept a statement you make, by referring to that person's particular circumstances. For example:

"Therefore it is perfectly acceptable to kill animals for food. I hope you won't argue otherwise, given that you're quite happy to wear leather shoes."

This is known as circumstantial argumentum ad hominem. The fallacy can also be used as an excuse to reject a particular conclusion. For example:

"Of course you'd argue that positive discrimination is a bad thing. You're white."

This particular form of Argumentum ad Hominem, when you allege that someone is rationalizing a conclusion for selfish reasons, is also known as "poisoning the well."

It's not always invalid to refer to the circumstances of an individual who is making a claim. If someone is a known perjurer or liar, that fact will reduce their credibility as a witness. It won't, however, prove that their testimony is false in this case. It also won't alter the soundness of any logical arguments they may make.

from: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#hominem

[Omnibus]

You are relying on quotations because you obviously are uncertain about the real meaning of ad hominem. Ad hominem may not always be a direct abuse using expletives and such but can be subtle, especially when the person using ad hominem is passive aggressive as in the case at hand. Giving a link containing unfavorable characterization instead of direct abuse is not less of ad hominem than slapping direct curses and abusive language. Lack of sensitivity to that subtlety is something the passive aggressive likes to rely on and falling in this trap is easy. Go ahead, confirm further you've fallen there too.

Also, you again are not addressing the real issue and in this way you continue to assist in destroying the forum.