On: Judge says domain name loss is not a "substantial ...

[starwed]

Nope. He argued that the judge was wrong, and then suggested that it was the judge's age that caused him to make an error.

What he didn't do is to use the judge's age in support of the first argument -- that would have been ad hominem.

http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

[catshirt → starwed]

he did: "[suggest] that it was the judge's age that caused him to make an error"

he didnt: "[use] the judge's age in support of the first argument"

forgive me; perhaps you could clarify the difference?

[starwed → catshirt]

It is the difference between

> My opponent is an idiot and believes X to be true, therefore X is false. (ad hominem)

and

> X is false. My opponent believes X to be true, therefore they are an idiot. (Not ad hominem.)

[Dylan16807 → catshirt]

It was a side note and not part of the argument.

[jcc80 → Dylan16807]

Is this a first year philosophy class? Reminds me of kids in law school. Ad hom this, straw man that...pointless discussion. We can all go look up the definitions if we want & decide for ourselves. Let it go & discussion the actual issue.

Fact is having a second means to communicate (a .me or whatever address) doesn't mean speech isn't an issue here.

http://www.thedomains.com/2011/08/05/federal-court-rules-dom...