[quote author=“TheChampion”]Sam, you’re aging, fast. You now look over 35….late nights studying for the PHD?
For those who don’t recognize it, that is an Ad Hominem observation. People age. You age. Sam ages. What does it have to do with any idea that Sam might have?
So, it appears to me that this time Sam is being swept away conceding the points that Bill O’ is saying. Ha, ha, LOL, Sam got cut off, Bill disagreed with the first real disputable point and walla, that was it. Hee hee….that was funny.
Bill O’ regularly cuts people off with bluster, shouting, or whatever. It’s his show. The fact that he is rude enough not to actually allow his guests to say their piece before he interrupts them speaks more to his ill-manners than to anything about his guests abilities to make their points intelligently. But if that’s the style of argument you like, Champ, then you just continue to enjoy Bill O’. Somebody’s got to.
They didn’t talk about his book, just about the hate speech from that MORON HugoC today at the UN.
That was another Ad Hominem. Attacking rather than arguing persuasively—is that a Christian characteristic, or just one of yours, Champ?
But Sam actually sounded reasonable and rational this time. Usually him and Mr O have it out…with amenable arguments.
Now, I don’t like ad hominem attacks myself, so rather than call you stupid and linguistically challenged, I’ll merely point out that none of the definitions of “amenable” really makes any sense whatever in that sentence.