Play the ball, not the man

A smoke signaller writes: “Ad hominem attacks – the practice of hurling insults at an opponent [rather than answering their argument] – is the final refuge of someone who has no valid arguments. It is both unconvincing and, sadly, unfortunately revealing of the weakness of a debater’s position. It is the equivalent of a small boy hurling dog dung when he isn’t able to think of a verbal response. Teina Bishop last week and Mark Brown in his Saturday letter to the editor could not have done more to convince the public that the unimpressed voter scored a palpable hit with his (or her) letter.”

A smoke signaller writes: “Ad hominem attacks – the practice of hurling insults at an opponent [rather than answering their argument] – is the final refuge of someone who has no valid arguments. It is both unconvincing and, sadly, unfortunately revealing of the weakness of a debater’s position. It is the equivalent of a small boy hurling dog dung when he isn’t able to think of a verbal response. Teina Bishop last week and Mark Brown in his Saturday letter to the editor could not have done more to convince the public that the unimpressed voter scored a palpable hit with his (or her) letter.”