"Hawke" wrote in message
...

That's the ad hominem fallacy.


How do you figure that? Where is the personal attack? I added up the cases
where the guy was wrong and where I have contrary facts from other sources
and deduced that if you follow someone who has a bad track record, then
you
will too. Nothing ad hominem there at all. You better get out your logic
primer again. Unless you're constructing a straw man.

If you have contrary facts from other sources, then the fact that it's Rove
isn't relevant. But you didn't say that in previous posts. You simply said
that you thought Rove wasn't credible.

If you attack Rove's claim because it's Rove, you're "arguing to the man."
That's ad hominem. Ad hominem does have a bit of a bad rap, because we do
make judgments based on the general reliability of the source. But
discounting an argument *because* it comes from someone in particular,
arguing with the source rather than with the facts, is ad hominem argument,
nonetheless.

--
Ed Huntress