Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell,comp.unix.programmer,comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Phrases that should be banned on Usenet (Was: Command Languages
 Versus Programming Languages)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 15:30:02 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: the-candyden-of-code
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <uv3mtq$a25k$1@dont-email.me>
References: <uu54la$3su5b$6@dont-email.me> <uv0ob4$3gcfl$1@dont-email.me>
 <uv0v7l$3i0l6$1@dont-email.me> <20240408122937.339@kylheku.com>
 <uv1heb$3hol5$1@news.xmission.com> <uv2qev$37fk$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2024 15:30:03 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9559f52fa75dce8880b119c63ad66bdc";
	logging-data="329908"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+FZftVNpxhjBZ7EAu4LhfpJKVYuWn3AL7mSSxjgkkfxQ=="
User-Agent: slrn/pre1.0.4-9 (Linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:pZbvmrN4KGAG8X8TRh3KxrJrrcM=
X-Face: b{dPmN&%4|lEo,wUO\"KLEOu5N_br(N2Yuc5/qcR5i>9-!^e\.Tw9?/m0}/~:UOM:Zf]%
 b+ V4R8q|QiU/R8\|G\WpC`-s?=)\fbtNc&=/a3a)r7xbRI]Vl)r<%PTriJ3pGpl_/B6!8pe\btzx
 `~R! r3.0#lHRE+^Gro0[cjsban'vZ#j7,?I/tHk{s=TFJ:H?~=]`O*~3ZX`qik`b:.gVIc-[$t/e
 ZrQsWJ >|l^I_[pbsIqwoz.WGA]<D
Bytes: 2781

Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote at 07:24 this Tuesday (GMT):
> On 08.04.2024 21:44, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>> In article <20240408122937.339@kylheku.com>,
>> Kaz Kylheku  <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> wrote:
>> ...
>>> You wrote, "people like you ... would never use a male pronoun if
>>> talking about nurses", written by you, is already ad hominem;
>>> it's a direct accusation of hypocrisy, rather than focusing on the
>>> argument content.
>>>
>>> If you can't handle the ad-hominem ball returned to your court,
>>> don't serve it!
>> 
>> We'd all be better off if nobody ever used the phrase 'ad hominem' ever
>> again on Usenet.
>> 
>> This also goes for the rest of those fancy Latin phrases that people use to
>> argue about arguing.
>
> Id est, exempli gratia, focussing on the argument per se, as
> Kaz sensibly suggested. :-)
>
> (It's good that in English most of the Latin is hidden behind
> abbreviations like i.e. and e.g.; but there's no abbreviation
> for "per se"? Probably because p.s. is already occupied?)
>
> Janis

I think it might be because per se is so short.

> PS: Of course I disagree for the "banning phrases" suggestion.
> Pointing out (in whatever way) to stay on the argument is fine.


It's a tricky subject.
-- 
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom