In the January 3rd MMD George Bogatko wrote about a Latin adage.  I
don't know if I'm doing the right thing now, regarding some discussions
lately in the MMD.  But it is my strong belief that mistakes have to
be corrected.  Not because I do like it so much to correct things.  But
as a help for a better knowledge.

Joyce Brite did write "It's okay to criticize someone's opinion, but it
is not right to criticize the person".  I must confess that I do not
fully support this.  There are times and circumstances that it is
almost necessary to criticize a person.  Even in the best marriage
(like mine) it's not possible to avoid some criticism every now and
then (unless you never have words with your partner, of course).  But
that's not the subject.

I want to react to George Bogatko, where he was writing, trying to
explain what Joyce wrote: "the technical term is "ad-hominum".  He
explains this saying:  "Instead of refusing the proposition, you attack
the person.  It's a frustrating reply, because it's off the subject".

Well, eehh, I do have a couple of problems with his contribution.  I
would not speak of a "technical term", but do prefer the word "adage":
"there is a Latin adage that says the same".  Or: "The Latin adage is".

If quoting, quote correct.  "Ad-hominum" has to be written as:
"Ad hominem".  This is only used in "Argumentum ad hominem", which
in fact is the complete adage.

It has nothing to do with attacking a person instead of refusing his
proposition.  An "argumentum ad hominem" is: you do prove your argument
by using the same type of argument that your opponent is using.  An
example will do the work: if you try to convince me, using technical
terms from your math-book, and I'm able to prove, using the same book,
that you do not make a correct use of the information in that book,
then I could bring you to silence (convince you) with my "argumentum
(more likely: argumenta) ad hominem".  No personal attack is involved.

Instead of "argumentem ad hominem" you may also use "argumentem ad
concessis" .  In this case I do use arguments, based upon information
(your arguments) you gave me earlier.

The opposite of both terms is the "argumentem ad rem", which is
an argument that is related to the subject directly, however not
(necessarily) of the same type as, or based upon the arguments, used
by the opponent.

So I think George Bogatko did write us a "response of misunder-
standing"?

                       //--------------
                      /
                     |   .......   ......
                     |
    WINK ----------> |   \\__//    -<>-
                     |          ||
                     |          ||         |
                     |         ||||        |
                               O  O        |
                                           |
                         -\\          //   |
    GRIN ----------->      \\========//    /
                            \\| | | |/    /
                             ========    /
                                        /
                                 ------
                                   |


Bye, 
Jan Kijlstra