[TheInspector]

Originally Posted by mheisig

It's pretty unusual to be able to argue a point better in person than through the written word. Very few debaters are capable of addressing each logical premise in sequence, draw conclusions and identify fallacious reasoning on the fly and in person. The written word provides a much higher degree of precision and referential ability than an oral debate.

You must have a remarkably unusual ability to argue orally or perhaps, like many, you use the ambiguity of speech to your advantage.

Thanks for the Philosophy 101 lesson - unfortunately my previous post exhibits no sign of an Ad Hominem attack, primarily because no argument was made. I made an inocuous, largely sarcastic comment that was in no way an attack on your person, thus no Ad Hominem.

I asked a question, you replied, I responded in sarcastic apology - no argument was formed or proposed. In the future it might be helpful to look up the fallacy yourself prior to using the term.

I'm done with this thread unless someone starts a "Healthcare Reform" thread in the Warpath Parking lot. This sucker has gone waaaaaaaaay

I missed the sarcasm. My mistake. You win. I lose. (no sarcasm here)

P.S.: it's not a philosophy lesson--it's ethics (maybe you should look it up first *sarcasm*).