Dear Barry, See in-line comments. On Mar 1, 2014, at 3:28 AM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> However, I feel the idea of creating an RFC >> merely to define "ad hominem" and suggest ways to prevent it is just a bit >> silly. For example, I can imagine a citation like "Your comment is an ad >> hominem, as defined in RFCxxxx. Please don't do that, or rephrase your >> question." > > I'd like to take this in a different direction, and suggest that we > stop using the term "ad hominem" entirely. It's misused too often, > and results in pedantic metadiscussion about what it does and doesn't > mean. In the end, communication wasn't did, as a group of pedants I > used to hang with used to say. > > I suggest that we just say it clearly this way: "We discuss the > content, not the speaker." That at the same time states the desired > behaviour and specifies exactly what the problem is with where the > discussion is starting to go. These discussions are basically verbal shorthand categorizing dismissed concerns. Any such shorthand should be comprehensive and well defined right? Unfortunately, such use is reminiscent of bigoted dismissive tactics. Does giving the category a cool name with a latin root absolve speakers of bias? Use of pedants is a fine word derived from a slave child caregiver. Would it be better to sound like lawyers referring to reasoning structure using Section x Clause y as a basis for dismissal or would these be little more than social cues with little tangible merit? >> Perhaps I'm just amazed that we've reached a point where we feel we actually >> have to write down what things constitute professional conduct (or the >> opposite). > > D'accord. But amazing or not, we do. Sigh. Better reasoning is achieved when not precluded by unrelated shorthand dismissal. Are we being lazy, quick to categorize, or unwilling to suffer fools? Use of such shorthand can be fairly unfriendly when misapplied because of various unrelated reasons. Regards, Douglas Otis