Your thoughts please

Jellybean_Jo

breadlinebetty wrote: »

I gave up reading that a few lines down..........God you are a bore.

Wow, you are so rude!! This really is completely unnecessary, and I'd like to make the suggestion that you just don't look at this thread anymore as there's obviously something here which has deeply offended you and you're just resorting to personal attacks. Please stop this now, it's not nice for others to read.

Fire_Fox

breadlinebetty wrote: »

...........and I also think it's VERY SUSPICIOUS that both you and La Fanella (or whatever ther name is) is always online together - even in the middle of the night! Are you using TWO computers? Lots of oddballs do that.

So how boring does it get up north again?:p

"MORE ABOUT PERSONAL ATTACKS AND AD HOMINEM ARGUMENTS ... BUT Writer B decided to attack the character of person A instead. This attack was not an argument; it was a ploy to discredit Person A so that Person A's argument would be rejected by others in the newsgroup. I see this as a form of verbal abuse. And when someone like Writer B uses such an argument, Writer B has lost by default because Writer B did not play by the rules of reasonable discourse.

Flames do not meet the standard of netiquette and should not be treated as worthy of a reasonable response. I encourage anyone who has been subjected to this kind of verbal abuse (flames) on the Internet in newsgroups, discussion groups, mailing lists, in message threads, in emails, when using USENET or posting comments on a blog (weblog) to respond in this manner: "In your last response to my post (or email or comment) you engaged in a personal attack. You have tried to discredit my argument by discrediting me as a person. You have used the fallacy of an Ad Hominem attack rather than refute the logic or reason of what I said. Therefore, you have lost the discussion and I will not respond further to your posts."
http://www.abusivelove.com/abuse_types_1_14.htm

Jellybean_Jo

Post Deleted.