"ad hominem" attacks? I don't think so

[RonButters at AOL.COM]

I'm puzzled. Maybe I missed something. Where, in any of this discussion, has 
there been a SINGLE   "attack on persons, rather than ideas"? 

Nobody has said that Mr. Fiske is stupid, or ugly, or wicked. Nobody has said 
that his ideas cannot possibly be trustworthy because he has ulterior 
motives, or brain damage, or beats his wife. (I should add that I think we can all 
assume that these things are definitely NOT true.)

A number of professional linguists HAVE disagreed here with his ideas, and 
criticized his own adherence to prescriptivist rules in his writing (which I 
even went so far as to satirize with a poem). In response, there has been almost 
nothing that responded to the IDEAS in the critical responses. Instead, we see 
only responses such as the ones below, in which the writers seem to be 
objecting simply to the fact that professional linguists disagree--sometimes 
vehemently, sometimes bluntly--with prescriptivist statements.

If there are "ad hominem" attacks anywhere in all this, it is from responders 
who--rather than addressing the IDEAS in the linguists' responses--merely 
take the linguists to task for impoliteness. Avoiding and deflecting the issues 
in this way is often the response of folks who have run out of ideas but have 
strong--if inchoate--feelings nonetheless. 


In a message dated 6/17/03 11:15:34 AM, LJT777 at AOL.COM writes:

Well said, Mr. Hadley.  The ad hominem attack was shocking and offensive.

In a message dated 6/17/03 11:12:24 AM, tim.hadley at TTU.EDU writes:


> 
> I'm new on this list, so I've read this Vocabula thread with interest, and a 
> little surprise. Interest, because I'm intrigued by the discussion of 
> prescriptivism, grammar, and even the political views that accompany these issues. 
> Surprise, on the other hand, at 2 things: (1) the lack of tolerance, on the 
> part of some, for others' views, and (2) the attacks on persons, rather than 
> ideas.
>