- This topic has 265 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 10 months ago by drunkle.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 7, 2008 at 8:06 PM #131602January 7, 2008 at 8:15 PM #131332drunkleParticipant
allan:
are you disagreeing with me fundamentally that gold’s post was pure ad hominem? he posited that wolf was an academic loser trying to make a buck. that’s it. pure personal attack and no substance. whether or not that’s a “strongly stated opinion” has nothing to do with whether or not it was a personal attack that completely avoids the issues. exactly as you claim that i’m doing in the obama thread.
January 7, 2008 at 8:15 PM #131515drunkleParticipantallan:
are you disagreeing with me fundamentally that gold’s post was pure ad hominem? he posited that wolf was an academic loser trying to make a buck. that’s it. pure personal attack and no substance. whether or not that’s a “strongly stated opinion” has nothing to do with whether or not it was a personal attack that completely avoids the issues. exactly as you claim that i’m doing in the obama thread.
January 7, 2008 at 8:15 PM #131521drunkleParticipantallan:
are you disagreeing with me fundamentally that gold’s post was pure ad hominem? he posited that wolf was an academic loser trying to make a buck. that’s it. pure personal attack and no substance. whether or not that’s a “strongly stated opinion” has nothing to do with whether or not it was a personal attack that completely avoids the issues. exactly as you claim that i’m doing in the obama thread.
January 7, 2008 at 8:15 PM #131584drunkleParticipantallan:
are you disagreeing with me fundamentally that gold’s post was pure ad hominem? he posited that wolf was an academic loser trying to make a buck. that’s it. pure personal attack and no substance. whether or not that’s a “strongly stated opinion” has nothing to do with whether or not it was a personal attack that completely avoids the issues. exactly as you claim that i’m doing in the obama thread.
January 7, 2008 at 8:15 PM #131617drunkleParticipantallan:
are you disagreeing with me fundamentally that gold’s post was pure ad hominem? he posited that wolf was an academic loser trying to make a buck. that’s it. pure personal attack and no substance. whether or not that’s a “strongly stated opinion” has nothing to do with whether or not it was a personal attack that completely avoids the issues. exactly as you claim that i’m doing in the obama thread.
January 7, 2008 at 8:17 PM #131337Allan from FallbrookParticipantRicechex: Nope, not an admiral. Not even ex-Navy, as a matter of fact. Just a lowly former Army 1st Lieutenant, actually. Thanks for the compliment. I don’t think I am earning any plaudits or friends over the last couple of days! Even Rustico is coming after me now.
January 7, 2008 at 8:17 PM #131519Allan from FallbrookParticipantRicechex: Nope, not an admiral. Not even ex-Navy, as a matter of fact. Just a lowly former Army 1st Lieutenant, actually. Thanks for the compliment. I don’t think I am earning any plaudits or friends over the last couple of days! Even Rustico is coming after me now.
January 7, 2008 at 8:17 PM #131527Allan from FallbrookParticipantRicechex: Nope, not an admiral. Not even ex-Navy, as a matter of fact. Just a lowly former Army 1st Lieutenant, actually. Thanks for the compliment. I don’t think I am earning any plaudits or friends over the last couple of days! Even Rustico is coming after me now.
January 7, 2008 at 8:17 PM #131590Allan from FallbrookParticipantRicechex: Nope, not an admiral. Not even ex-Navy, as a matter of fact. Just a lowly former Army 1st Lieutenant, actually. Thanks for the compliment. I don’t think I am earning any plaudits or friends over the last couple of days! Even Rustico is coming after me now.
January 7, 2008 at 8:17 PM #131623Allan from FallbrookParticipantRicechex: Nope, not an admiral. Not even ex-Navy, as a matter of fact. Just a lowly former Army 1st Lieutenant, actually. Thanks for the compliment. I don’t think I am earning any plaudits or friends over the last couple of days! Even Rustico is coming after me now.
January 7, 2008 at 8:29 PM #131347RicechexParticipantYeah, I would think Rustico would! He lives in the city. We choose where we live and in many ways it represents so much about us, whether we like it or not. I could live in a fancy small apartment in La Jolla, or samll SFR in North Park. Give me 92104 any day. Aaah…hah…drawn it back to the housing market!
January 7, 2008 at 8:29 PM #131529RicechexParticipantYeah, I would think Rustico would! He lives in the city. We choose where we live and in many ways it represents so much about us, whether we like it or not. I could live in a fancy small apartment in La Jolla, or samll SFR in North Park. Give me 92104 any day. Aaah…hah…drawn it back to the housing market!
January 7, 2008 at 8:29 PM #131536RicechexParticipantYeah, I would think Rustico would! He lives in the city. We choose where we live and in many ways it represents so much about us, whether we like it or not. I could live in a fancy small apartment in La Jolla, or samll SFR in North Park. Give me 92104 any day. Aaah…hah…drawn it back to the housing market!
January 7, 2008 at 8:29 PM #131599RicechexParticipantYeah, I would think Rustico would! He lives in the city. We choose where we live and in many ways it represents so much about us, whether we like it or not. I could live in a fancy small apartment in La Jolla, or samll SFR in North Park. Give me 92104 any day. Aaah…hah…drawn it back to the housing market!
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.