Steve Peterson wrote:

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...

Steve Peterson wrote:


snip

you may be trying to make. It is "ad hominem" and means to attack the

More condescension? I was under the impression (perhaps incorrectly)
that "ad homina" was the plural of "ad hominem". But I'm clearly not
as smart as you since you've managed to read great big part of
the Wickipedia ...


person rather than the point that person may have made.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Steve

OK, On October 3, you said: " And of course, we should trust someone whose
defense of "reality"
is grounded in ad homina attack and whose claims to knowledge
are unsubstantiated or perhaps even unsubstantiable. "

Here's your oft repeated error - ad hominem is an adjective, which modifies
a noun. If ad homina is plural, it needs a plural noun, such as attacks.
If you don't know how to use it, don't.


I stand (sit) corrected ... be aware though, that "attack" can be read
as plural (i.e., As a body of "attacks"). But I will bow to your
point here.

Have an even nicer day,


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/