General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: WaPo Misread Powerpoint- Story on Feds tapping directly into internet companies was wrong & rushed [View all]caseymoz
(5,763 posts)As it turns out from Greenwald's now revealed source, that Greenwald was completely accurate. You're right. He knows words mean things.The only thing he did was say more than he could prove immediately, and I'm qualifying that until I've read his article a few more times.
And for proving him wrong, your statement that "Lawyers know words mean things" is pretty weak. How does it disprove the warrant he presents? A distraction followed by an ad hominum that he was "sloppy at best," an ad hominum phrase copied directly from the article.
You apparently don't know exactly what an ad hominum is. It's not just calling somebody a bad name. It could be using loosely defined, negative, value-laden phrases like "sloppy" to attack the person. Anything used to undercut the person, impugn his or her character or motive, rather than illustrate why the fact he presents is incorrect is an ad hominum, otherwise known as argumentum ad hominum, an officially recognized fallacy.
You've Xeroxed Cesca's ad hominum attack without recognizing it for what it is. Which is exactly why an article like his is written.
That's not to say you can't talk about motive and question somebody's character. But you do it after you've refuted the facts if you can. Not before.