From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue May 24 13:33:55 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 24 May 2005 13:33:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1Dag5x-00050M-By for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 24 May 2005 13:33:45 -0700 Received: from web81304.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.79]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Dag5t-00050F-Gi for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 24 May 2005 13:33:45 -0700 Message-ID: <20050524203425.8571.qmail@web81304.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [68.88.37.184] by web81304.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 24 May 2005 13:34:25 PDT Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 13:34:25 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: railgun To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <1116964187.9031.4.camel@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 10035 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --- Theodore Reed wrote: > On Tue, 2005-05-24 at 12:38 -0700, John E > Clifford wrote: > > So, I shouldn't answer your questions? > > No, on the contrary you should. > > > > > > I'm not touching any supposed ad > hominem, > > > but, > > > > > but exactly what is this > > > > > red herring? > > Maybe I didn't make myself clear. Let me try to > clarify this some: > > Statement: I'm going to ignore any supposed ad > hominem. > Question: What red herring do you refer to? > > To which you reply: > > > > > In the ad hominem, the issue of the > amount of > > > > Lojban I have written is raised, > presumably > > > to be > > > > dealt with, but it is not germane. > > Completely ignoring my question, and responding > to something which I > said I would ignore. > > Well done. Sorry if I was unclear. The location of the red herring happened to be in the ad hominem. The red herring is bringing up the irrelevant question of how much Lojban I have written. If I respond to the ad hominem, I needs must dicuss this issue to the exclusion -- for the nonce -- of the actual issue, which was, I recall, something about a good word for "gun." So, I did exactly answer your question. You woouldf get about a C- except that I have been convinced that everything I say is hard to understand, so you get off.