[sally888]

What a blatant ad hominem and straw man attack. Do you like to misrepresent someone's positions because they have differing opinions from yours?

[Tloewald]

You said "IMHO ..." and then asserted something with no evidence. So the only germane information is the quality of your opinions. I made no assessment of those opinions, I simply listed what I found, based on your posts, and asked for confirmation. If merely listing these things constitutes an ad hominem attack, then it says more about your opinions than it does about me.

[nilkn]

Let's be fair here.

"You said "IMHO ..." and then asserted something with no evidence."

Why would you expect something else when someone starts their post with IMHO?

> If merely listing these things constitutes an ad hominem attack, then it says more about your opinions than it does about me.

Your post had an obvious tone to it.

[Tloewald]

Tone, obvious or otherwise, does not constitute ad hominem either.

[alexholehouse]

So these are not your opinions?

[saraid216]

If your answer to the question was "no", you should say "no" and then clarify. It's not that hard.

[Tloewald]

I neither like misrepresenting other people's positions nor am I prone to doing it despite not liking it.

Have I misrepresented your positions?

If your answer was "no" then why not say that?

[saraid216]

...not sure if you've mistaken me for someone else. I have no part in this discussion except making the procedural point.

[Tloewald]

Whoops. Sorry about that.

My point (addressed incorrectly) stands. It makes less sense for me to answer "no" than for the person I was responding to to answer "no". If I was making a "straw man" then in what way was it straw? If I was misrepresenting his/her opinions, how so? Otherwise, if more-or-less accurately summarizing a person's positions is ad hominem then what does that say of those positions?