The modus operandi of the Right Wing these days is to avoid meeting the main issue head on, where more often than not, they don't stand a chance, and duck off to the side and attack by bringing up something completely irrelevant. E.g., note how often, when the Bush administration comes in for criticism, that the Right Wingers around here suddenly bring up Bill Clinton's petty peccadilloes and try to make something world-shaking out of it. If it even goes into the history books at all, it will only merit a footnote, and as has been pointed out by a number of people so far, Clinton's indiscretions and subsequent lie did not result in one single death, let alone the deaths of 2,000 American soldiers and upwards of 30,000 Iraqis. Nor did it embroil this country in yet another quagmire that it will quite possibly be decades getting itself out of.

Now, here, in this thread, we have Amos calling attention to the writings of those who are critical of the Bush administration. Admittedly, Amos is trying to make a point. That's fine. It's his right. As a matter of fact, one could say that as a good citizen, it is his duty both to himself and to his country to express his considered viewpoint and call attention to material that supports it.

So—in response to this, what do the Right Wingers around here do? They make use of another diversionary tactic to attack Amos on matters that are totally irrelevant to the subject of this thread. It makes no difference what philosophical or religious viewpoints and beliefs Amos may have held in the past, or, for that matter, what philosophy or beliefs he holds now. This, in no way, alters the truth or falsity of the articles he is calling to our attention.

This is yet another blatant example of the resident Right Wingers attempting to divert attention from the main points of an argument by invoking a very popular fallacy with them—the argumentum ad hominem: this consists of attacking the person asserting the argument rather than the argument itself. It makes no difference to the truth or falsity of the argument if the person making the argument is a liar, a thief, an axe-murderer, or a maniac—or whether or not he can walk on water. If the argument is true, it is true independent of the person asserting the argument. Likewise, if it is false, it is false regardless of the presumed credibility of the person making the assertion.

For a thorough exposition of the argumentum ad hominem, see the following:—
One More Time!   
[And as many times as it takes before people stop using it and stick to the point.]
In a nutshell, rather than attempting to refute the argument itself, those who use the argumentum ad hominem do so in order to divert attention from the argument by attacking the credibility of the person asserting the argument.

This, obviously, is what GUEST,Old Guy (whom, I suspect, is an apprentice of Karl Rove) is knocking himself out in an effort to do.

I don't know Amos personally—we have never met face to face—but from his posts, I have always found him to be quite sane, well centered in reality, intelligent, and articulate. In fact, he has what some might regard as "a dangerous gift of eloquence" (and therein lies the problem that some people here seem to have with him). But if Amos were flitting about as an Operating Thetan, or running around and foaming at the mouth (neither of which, as far as I can tell, he is doing), it would have absolutely nothing to do with the truth or falsity of anything he says or of any article he calls our attention to.

Old Guy (and you too, "Xenu"), you may as well get off that bus because it isn't going anywhere. It results only in making you look like a bit of an ass.

Don Firth

"If the words are true, what does it matter who speaks them?" ~~Kahless, the Klingon Messiah.