Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Thomas Brown wrote:
>
> >And why should I keep quiet about Churchill's research misconduct,
> >just because right-wingers don't like his insults to the 9/11 dead?
>
> Has O'Reilly called yet?
>
> Doug
Several different points.
1. Isn't it about time to quit giving this slimeball free space in the lbo-archives? There are certainly enough publishing thugs (cyber and paper) out there to give him room. And thuggery is the best label I can think of for TB and any journal editors who might publish him.
2. Back to my old argument about motive-mongering, and the distinction I have drawn between (a) personal attacks and (b) ad hominem arguments (also known as poisoning the wells of discourse or plain intellectual dishonesty).
The responses to Brown on this list (including mine) have been personal attacks, not ad hominem arguments fot the most part. That is, we have argued that anyone who makes arguments such as is is a slimeball; we haven't argued that because TB is a slimeball his arguments are wrong. Those arguments stand or fall (and almost wholly fall) on their own merits, independently of the sliminess of the person making them.
Personal attacks may or may not be legitimate, polite, etc., but they are not intllectually dishonest.
Ad Hominem arguments (note: arguments, not attacks) are dishonest. They poison discourse and make useful argument impossible.
Carrol