Take your ball and go home then. I was attempting to be cordial. Give you the benefit of the doubt. But your response to a negative reaction is to claim "it was a test." That's just sad.
Per the plagiarism, if you are willing to grab portions off of wikipedia and post it on the internet as your own, I'd have to imagine you'd do the same elsewhere. It was in a sad little internet post. But still. Ripping off wikipedia while trying to talk down to someone? You even went to the effort of intermingling it with your own thoughts to make it look like you wrote it.
cannon_fodder wrote on December 27, 2007, 12:40:56 pmSince this is a continuation it will be locked/deleted and I understand that... so forgive me mods but really:
Originally posted by David Arnett
Tim,
You have engaged here in a formal fault of logic, called an ad hominem. An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.
Other common subtypes of the ad hominem include the ad hominem circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer; and the ad hominem tu quoque, which objects to an argument by characterizing the arguer as acting or arguing in accordance with the view that he is arguing against.
Ad hominem arguments are always invalid in syllogistic logic, since the truth value of premises is taken as given, and the validity of a logical inference is independent of the person making the inference. However, ad hominem arguments are rarely presented as formal syllogisms, and their assessment lies in the domain of informal logic and the theory of evidence.[1] The theory of evidence depends to a large degree on assessments of the credibility of witnesses, including eyewitness evidence and expert witness evidence. Evidence that a purported eyewitness is unreliable, or has a motive for lying, or that a purported expert witness lacks the claimed expertise can play a major role in making judgements from evidence.
Argumentum ad hominem is the converse of argumentum ad verecundiam, in which the arguer bases the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it. Hence, while an ad hominem argument may make an assertion less compelling, by showing that the person making the assertion does not have the authority, knowledge or position they claim, or has made mistaken assertions on similar topics in the past, it cannot provide an infallible counterargument.
The argumentum ad hominem is a genetic fallacy and red herring, and is most often (but not always) an appeal to emotion.
I have written, “The original point of this thread was to call attention to inaccurate sensationalism on [www.thetulsan.com published by Tim Huntzinger] which attempted to Katrina-ise Tulsa’s Ice Storm. I hope everyone that saw that post knew more than I did – it could have seemed serious to those outside the area worrying as they searched for news about family and friends in crisis."
Tim, your answer to that question of publishing propriety is that your site is a farce – it would seem then to agree with the original posting. Ok, fine. Then you attack me. Ok, fine. I am a critic and have criticized left and right for many years. Critics of my work are welcome to say whatever they have to say. I publish on
www.TulsaToday.com and if you have a specific question on a specific story, you can e-mail from that site or post a new thread, but mention the specific story which would enable a discussion of specific policy issues.
Wikipedia entry for "Ad hominem"
quote:Wikipedia Wrote
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.
Other common subtypes of the ad hominem include the ad hominem circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer; and the ad hominem tu quoque, which objects to an argument by characterizing the arguer as acting or arguing in accordance with the view that he is arguing against.
Ad hominem arguments are always invalid in syllogistic logic, since the truth value of premises is taken as given, and the validity of a logical inference is independent of the person making the inference. However, ad hominem arguments are rarely presented as formal syllogisms, and their assessment lies in the domain of informal logic and the theory of evidence.[1] The theory of evidence depends to a large degree on assessments of the credibility of witnesses, including eyewitness evidence and expert witness evidence. Evidence that a purported eyewitness is unreliable, or has a motive for lying, or that a purported expert witness lacks the claimed expertise can play a major role in making judgements from evidence.
Argumentum ad hominem is the converse of argumentum ad verecundiam, in which the arguer bases the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it. Hence, while an ad hominem argument may make an assertion less compelling, by showing that the person making the assertion does not have the authority, knowledge or position they claim, or has made mistaken assertions on similar topics in the past, it cannot provide an infallible counterargument.
The argumentum ad hominem is a genetic fallacy and red herring, and is most often (but not always) an appeal to emotion.
Then waaaaaayyyy down at the bottom it has a little blurb about its Copyright. The Wikipedia entry on its Copyright policies can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CopyrightsIt can be used freely so long as it is referenced. Thus, your usage is a violation of their Copyright and also qualifies as Plagiarism - which is passing off someone else's work as your own.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlagarismAnd while I am at it, your argument itself is lacking as his post clearly stated his OPINION of you and thus was not framed using syllogistic logic. Opinions by their very nature are generally free from logical interpretation if no such claim is made ("I hate Duke basketball" Why? "I just always have.").
The type of fallacy you are seeking is "personal attack" (I'm confident you can find the Wikipedia entry) as Tim's was not an attempt to logically classify you as a weirdo, irrelevant, or humorless. Ad Hominem is ONLY a fallacy in a logical argument, which, by all accounts this is far removed. You also accuse him of a "shifting ground" fallacy in spite of your refusal to acknowledge his redirect.
I could go on with the logical errors in your initial and subsequent posts as well as the error in the entire manner of the framed argument, but I'm guessing you really did not want to get into the finer point of formally framed logic debates and the corresponding faux pas so frequently committed on the internet.
- - -
And while I'm at it... you accused Tim of pimping his website on TulsaNow but you have done nothing but. I really don't mind as I think you have contributed in some other threads (this one is essentially garbage), but there is another word you can lookup on Wikipedia for someone who accuses someone else of an act they themselves are guilty of.
Now please, stop making me defend the absurdity that is Timmay! I rarely have even have such a notion, but calling someone else out by ripping off Wikipedia is just, well, just wow. Please just contribute to discussions as you have knowledge in many areas involving Tulsa - but your vendetta against Tim is just destroying your credibility in many people's eyes.
Pretty funny huh? You got in a fight about using TulsaNow to do nothing but pimp websites, then got caught ripping off posting wikipedia content and left. Now you came back to pimp your website. Man, you should totally run to Wikipedia and look up irony
