billcoe

Yeah, total aid climbing bridge. Maybe a1+ but it's an expanding flake essentially. Takes pins well. Think of this though, if you blow it at the wrong time the zipper puts you in the middle of the Tualaton river with 30 lbs of iron around your neck. Drowning is a real possibility. Wiss Macobsen reportedly blew it and zippered the 30 feet down and luckily to the edge of the river, slammed into the mud on the riverbank and still walked away. Here's my only overhang picture. The route is going to be right behind me there. Steep but do-able.

I'm joking. Just looking for a place to put that one, as it fits most threads around here. I was really looking for this: Hey Ivan, lets take up a collection so that we can get a camera in Geoffs hands or batteries in yours!? Love to see the length of the bolt and whether the placement failed or if the rock blew......I think I need to find that aid climbing bridge again for you to get your wet weather fix...Imagine @ 300' of dead horizontal and a hanging belay mid-span....:-)

It sound's like you are paying too much,maybe work on the lease rates a bit in either case, try to get hourly rates instead of min. and the rate night come down. It's not every day one gets their package stimulated, best hang in as long as possible....congrats and good luck!

We don't need no stinkin' diplomacy........

Same here. Thanks! XXX

LOL! Thats funny. Probably a good thing in this case, I had some bad words in there. You can be a likable guy when you're not name calling ya know.

Is that what passes for wit in your trailer you fucked up piece of shit?

You can't be that stupid can you that you can't use your imagination? You called me a Dumb fuck yesterday and I don't appreciate it as I've not given you the shit you so rightfully deserve. So to toss your own words back at you do you just play at being a "dumb fuck" on the internet? Alright you stupid fuck, since you are playing at being dense and can't imagine a potential example - here's a real example. Try to read the entire thing and think about it first before you post your attack back. Yes, I know that will be hard for you. I'm talking things EXACTLY like this potentially happening. Alienating friends. Here is a concrete example so you can possibly imagine something else LIKE this. James_delingpoe piece from the telegraph.co.uk "On US radio's Garrison show today, I was asked for my reaction as a true born Englishman to President Obama's double insult - first the sending back of the Winston Churchill bust, then his snub to Gordon Brown. "Tough one. Really tough one," I said, torn - as most of surely are - between delight at seeing Brown roundly humiliated, and dismay at having the special relationship so peremptorily, cruelly and bafflingly ruptured. Michelle Obama's dress sense may be impeccable, but what of her politics? (Photo: Getty) Iain Martin is quite right here: no matter how utterly rubbish we have become as a nation in the Blair/Brown years, Britain's friendship is something Obama will come to regret having dispensed with so lightly. This was not the act of a global statesman, but of a hormonal teenager dismissing her bestest of best BFs for no other reason than that she felt like it and she can, so there. What was the guy thinking? In researching my new book Welcome to Obamaland, I discovered that Obama's judgment is pretty dreadful - but this? My favourite theory so far - suggested by presenter Greg Garrison - was that it was a move calculated to please his Lady Macbeth. At the moment in Britain, we're still in the "Doesn't she look fabulous in a designer frock" stage of understanding of Michelle Obama. Gradually, though, we'll begin to realise that she is every bit the terrifying executive's wife that Hillary Clinton was. Or, shudder, Cherie Blair. We may just LURVE Michelle's fashion sense. But Michelle doesn't reciprocate our affection, one bit. Her broad-brush view of history associates Brits with the wicked white global hegemony responsible for the slave trade. Never mind that a white, Tory Englishman - William Wilberforce - brought the slave trade to an end. Judging by her record, Michelle does not make room for such subtle nuance. Consider her notorious statement that: "For the first time in my adult life I am really proud of my country." Consider her (till-recently suppressed) Princeton thesis, "Princeton Educated Blacks And The Black Community." In it she writes: "I have found that at Princeton, no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong. Regardless of the circumstances underwhich I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second." Here we see that she has mastered the authentic voice of grievance culture. She also - the thesis was written in 1985 - pre-empts the Macpherson report's ludicrous, catch-all definition of racism: "A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person." No matter how hard young Michelle's white undergraduate contemporaries try to be nice, it's not their behaviour that counts, but how Michelle feels. More worrying, though, and dangerous, than young Michelle's desperate quest for validation through victimhood is the other strain within her thesis. "As I enter my final year at Princeton," she writes. "I find myself striving for many of the same goals as my White classmates - acceptance to a prestigious graduate or professional school or a high paying position in a successful corporation. Thus, my goals at Princeton are not as clear as before." "Yes, exactly, you silly girl" you want to shriek at young Michelle as you give her a good shake. "It's called 'opening your mind', 'broadening your experience', 'allowing youthful dogma to be shaped by reality.' It's why people go to university, don't you know?" This is an example. I was speaking hypothetically on potential diplomatic F*uck ups. Trying to help you out here.

The complete bullshit is all coming from you.

I find it amazing you don't know how you did it! Rough boyz? We were out wandering in the semi-wilderness once with one of my favorite college professors, Dr. Jakob Freid, the anthropologist. He trips on a root and rolled down a short hill towards me below. He did a couple of full on somersaults over some rocks and luckily I was where I was as I grabbed him and stopped him just before he rolled into the Wind River, which was raging: high and cold. He sits there and the first words he says were "I broke my scapula". He repeated it a few times for effect as sweat ran like rivulets off his face and chin. I'm like thinking WTF is that and how does he even know? Anyway, to make short story long, we needed to do some mandatory rock climbing that involved both hands to get out. To fall would be to die, no question. A rescue in there would have been involved, slow and complicated. Jakob insists on trying it over my strong objections. I tied my polyro shirt around his neck to make a sling so he could stop cradling it and free up his good arm, and myself and another climber squeeze jobbed him on both sides and took turns pushing him into the rock so he could move his good arm to a new handhold: to the sounds of pain coming from Jakob. Eventually the pain and struggle paid off and we did the hike out to the the car and the hospital. They tell him he's got a broken scapula, and I think it was 5 or 6 months they wanted him to immoblize it. However, he was in his 60's then, and I don't think he did much for about 2 months and then he was back to normal. I almost forgotten about that, what a remarkable man he was. Good luck with it Scott

Kyle told me he was googling his name and up it pops under Wide Fetish! He's like WTF! Then he clicks it and instead of some sick sexual fetish thing he sees a FA we did together. I'd done a trip report and it just totally cracked him up. Wide Fetish! LOL Sick stuff. ps, for anyone contemplating this kind of crazyness, here's the Valley Giant link: http://home.pacbell.net/takasper/slcd/valleygiant.html #9 New Generation Aluminum SLCD - $150.00 #12 New Generation Aluminum SLCD - $225.00 Wow , I have a few I'd loan folks who know me, but sadly, I come with them:-)

I totally agree with the 2nd amendment post. you realize of course, that some here will not read it, but will argue against it on their own lack of principle alone.

That whole thing is surprising and calls into question competency and if they can get say....international relations.... right, or if it will take 3 or 4 try's at that as well. The Obama team was bragging at the start of this how deep and through the "vetting" process would be, yet they can't seem to pull it off anywhere close to flawlessly. It's a F**ked Up mess. Guys like Tvrash were calling Cheney all kinds of names a bit ago, but as confusing as his tax life must have been given the complexities of his various employments, no on even alleged he skipped any of his taxes ever. So this is how this will probably go: "Well we fucked that up Hillary, now lets move onto fixing the Middle East problem...." Hmmmmmm OK.

Yeah, and it looks like you got full value on that! Good on you folks for going for it! You folks have a contest to see who could load the most shit on them and still stand up longer than 10 seconds here? I think I'm looking at the winner here:-)

Interesting that the US gov't quit supplying the M3 or amount of money in service information.

Sadly, although he complied, now his tongue is stuck to the roof of his mouth and he's speechless....

Don't ya wonder if Raindawg watches this stuff all day?

LOL, good luck with that:-0

dumb fucks? [video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWTdbPjsBSs

Checks in the mail Ryan. regards Bill

I've never been into the FBI office, although I was just shooting my non-banned assault rifles next to 2 agents who had sniper rifles on my lunch hour today. I don't know if that makes FOX any better or if it should lower our opinion of the FBI if that's where they've been getting their info from.

Here's the full Fox list: " Obama’s Top Five Broken Promises By Phil Kerpen Director of Policy, Americans for Prosperity Promise #5: Sunlight Before Signing What he said: “Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.” (BarackObama.com campaign Web site) What he did: Obama signed the Lily Ledbetter bill, the SCHIP/cigarette tax hike, and the stimulus bill all with far less than a five-day waiting period that he promised–and continues to promise–on his campaign Web site. Promise #4: Lobbyist Revolving Door What he said: “No political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration.” (BarackObama.com campaign Web site) What he did: Obama appointed Goldman Sachs lobbyists Mark Patterson chief of staff at the Treasury Department, where he directly oversees his former employer, a recipient of $10 billion of taxpayer funds from the TARP. Obama also appointed Raytheon lobbyist William Lynn to be an undersecretary of Defense. Promise #3: No Tax Hikes on the Poor What he said first: “I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” (September 12, 2008, Dover, N.H.) What he did first: By signing H.R. 2 into law, Obama happily signed onto the idea that smokers should pay for a $35 billion expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Plan (SCHIP). Cigarette taxes are going up 61 cents a pack starting April 1. Obama signed this bill knowing that the majority of smokers in the United States are working poor, and one in four lives below the federal poverty line. What he said next: “If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.” (February 24th, 2009, Address to a Joint Session of Congress) What he did next: Ignored the already-hiked cigarette tax at the time of the statement and then this restated promise was broken just two days later, when the Obama’s budget proposal was released. His new budget raises 45 percent of its revenue from energy taxes that will be paid by everyone who fills a gas tank, pays an electric bill, or buys anything that was grown, shipped, or manufactured. Promise #2: Pork Barrel Earmark Reform What he said: “The system is broken. We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress’ seniority, rather than the merit of the project. We can no longer accept an earmarks process that has become so complicated to navigate that a municipality or non-profit group has to hire high-priced D.C. lobbyists to do it. And we can no longer accept an earmarks process in which many of the projects being funded fail to address the real needs of our country.” (Statement on Earmarks, March 10, 2008) What he is expected to do: The White House has signaled that it intends to sign the $410 billion Omnibus Appropriations bill, which according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, contains 8,570 earmarks totaling $7.7 billion, including dozens of wasteful pork-barrel projects. These earmarks were awarded based on seniority, not on merit, and were mostly the result of high-priced lobbying, precisely the process that Obama promised to end. When the omnibus reaches his desk later this week or next week, we’ll find out if this is one more broken promise. Promise #1: Big Government OK, so this one is more of a statement than a promise, but it’s the biggest whopper of all. What he said: “Not because I believe in bigger government — I don’t.” (February 24, 2009, Joint Address to Congress) What he did: Obama proposed a budget that is breathtaking in scope, a blueprint for the biggest permanent expansion of government in history right on the heels of a sweeping trillion dollar stimulus plan. The budget lays the foundation for a government takeover of the health care and energy sectors and dramatically increasing spending across the board, other than defense weapons programs. Spending as a percentage of the economy under this budget will reach the historic level of 27.7 percent this year. The deficit as a percent of the economy, at 12.3 percent, is set to be the biggest in the entire history of the country outside of the four peak years of World War II. Anyone who offers such a budget can only fairly be described as a believer in bigger government. Phil Kerpen is director of policy for Americans for Prosperity." I don't think Fox gave him a fair shake, and on the assault weapons ban comment, to be fair, that was Eric Holders comment in discussing ways we can help Mexico was it not? In examining the "Biggest whopper", ie larger government, this is the full quote with that part underlined by me. Doesn't look damning to me like the sound bite Fox grabbed. In fact, it causes me not to respect or believe any of Foxes other stuff if they have to reach that much to pull something like that out of context to attack the dude. Here's more of that speech to congress. "As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by President’s Day that would put people back to work and put money in their pockets. Not because I believe in bigger government – I don’t.Not because I’m not mindful of the massive debt we’ve inherited – I am. I called for action because the failure to do so would have cost more jobs and caused more hardships. In fact, a failure to act would have worsened our long-term deficit by assuring weak economic growth for years. That’s why I pushed for quick action. And tonight, I am grateful that this Congress delivered, and pleased to say that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is now law. Over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs. More than 90% of these jobs will be in the private sector – jobs rebuilding our roads and bridges; constructing wind turbines and solar panels; laying broadband and expanding mass transit. Because of this plan, there are teachers who can now keep their jobs and educate our kids. Health care professionals can continue caring for our sick. There are 57 police officers who are still on the streets of Minneapolis tonight because this plan prevented the layoffs their department was about to make. Because of this plan, 95% of the working households in America will receive a tax cut – a tax cut that you will see in your paychecks beginning on April 1st. Because of this plan, families who are struggling to pay tuition costs will receive a $2,500 tax credit for all four years of college. And Americans who have lost their jobs in this recession will be able to receive extended unemployment benefits and continued health care coverage to help them weather this storm. I know there are some in this chamber and watching at home who are skeptical of whether this plan will work. I understand that skepticism. Here in Washington, we’ve all seen how quickly good intentions can turn into broken promises and wasteful spending. And with a plan of this scale comes enormous responsibility to get it right. That is why I have asked Vice President Biden to lead a tough, unprecedented oversight effort – because nobody messes with Joe. I have told each member of my Cabinet as well as mayors and governors across the country that they will be held accountable by me and the American people for every dollar they spend. I have appointed a proven and aggressive Inspector General to ferret out any and all cases of waste and fraud. And we have created a new website called recovery.gov so that every American can find out how and where their money is being spent. So the recovery plan we passed is the first step in getting our economy back on track. But it is just the first step. Because even if we manage this plan flawlessly, there will be no real recovery unless we clean up the credit crisis that has severely weakened our financial system." Come on now, you have to admit that the Fox bite is a lie and way out of context. As far as bigger government goes, did you look at the Bush budgets and the huge debt which they indebted you and your kids kids for??? ? Whew. The Borrow and spend Republicans took us down in a big way, seriously, you should be glad they're gone. We are in a huge hole to dig out of, and Obama is starting in the hole that the Bush admin made for all of us, he's the one that is dealing with it though, although perhaps if you have any sterling ideas to add, I'm sure they could use all the help they could get.

Well JMO, although I think you're a breath of fresh air, plan on a bunch of nasty bitchy 5 year old imitators showing up with their little pissy foul mouths as if saying nasty things about you will win them an argument because they either have nothing else of substance, or or just too fucking stupid to be able to present it in a factual manner. Have a nice day:-)

I'll say it for JB since he's not here ;Ad Hominem attack. You probably don't have anything of substance that attacks the root with facts or interesting info so you resort to attacking the person- personally. Here's a explanation form wikipedia for you. Hope it helps you out. "An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject. Contents [hide] Background Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it. Other common subtypes of the ad hominem include the ad hominem circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer; and the ad hominem tu quoque, which objects to an argument by characterizing the arguer as acting or arguing in accordance with the view that he is arguing against. Ad hominem arguments are always invalid in syllogistic logic, since the truth value of premises is taken as given, and the validity of a logical inference is independent of the source making the inference. However, ad hominem arguments are rarely presented as formal syllogisms, and their assessment lies in the domain of informal logic and the theory of evidence.[1] The theory of evidence depends to a large degree on assessments of the credibility of witnesses, including eyewitness evidence and expert witness evidence. Evidence that a purported eyewitness is unreliable, or has a motive for lying, or that a purported expert witness lacks the claimed expertise can play a major role in making judgements from evidence. Argumentum ad hominem is the inverse of argumentum ad verecundiam, in which the arguer bases the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the source asserting it. Hence, while an ad hominem argument may make an assertion less compelling, by showing that the source making the assertion does not have the authority, knowledge or position it claims, or has made mistaken assertions on similar topics in the past, it cannot provide an infallible counterargument. An ad hominem fallacy is a genetic fallacy and red herring, and is most often (but not always) an appeal to emotion. It does not include arguments posed by a source that contradict the source's actions. Ad hominem as informal fallacy A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form: Source A makes claim X There is something objectionable about Source A Therefore claim X is false Ad hominem is one of the best known of the logical and systematic fallacies usually enumerated in introductory logic and critical thinking textbooks. Both the fallacy itself, and accusations of having committed it, are often brandished in actual discourse (see also Argument from fallacy). As a technique of rhetoric, it is powerful and used often because of the natural inclination of the human brain to recognize patterns. The first premise is called a 'factual claim' and is the pivot point of much debate. The contention is referred to as an 'inferential claim' and represents the reasoning process. There are two types of inferential claim, explicit and implicit. The fallacy does not represent a valid form of reasoning because even if you accept both co-premises, that does not guarantee the truthfulness of the contention. This can also be thought of as the argument having an un-stated co-premise. In this example, the un-stated co-premise "everything that A claims is false" has been included, and the argument is therefore now a valid one. However in the ad hominem fallacy the un-stated co-premise is always false, thereby maintaining the fallacy- just as wearing boots isn't a bad thing, yet many Nazis wore boots. Note that this does not imply that the contention "eugenics is a bad idea" is false, but merely that it is un-supported by the pattern of reasoning below it. An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that an argument is wrong and/or the source is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the source or those sources cited by it rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself. The implication is that the source's argument and/or ability to argue correctly lacks authority. Merely insulting a source in the middle of otherwise rational discourse does not necessarily constitute an ad hominem fallacy (though it is not usually regarded as acceptable). It must be clear that the purpose of the characterization is to discredit the source offering the argument, and, specifically, to invite others to discount its arguments. In the past, the term ad hominem was sometimes used more literally, to describe an argument that was based on an individual, or to describe any personal attack. However, this is not how the meaning of the term is typically introduced in modern logic and rhetoric textbooks, and logicians and rhetoricians are in agreement that this use is incorrect.[2] Example: "You claim that this man is innocent, but you cannot be trusted since you are a criminal as well." This argument would generally be accepted as reasonable, as regards personal evidence, on the premise that criminals are likely to lie to protect each other. On the other hand, it is a valid example of ad hominem if the source making the claim is doing so on the basis of evidence independent of its own credibility. In general, ad hominem criticism of evidence cannot prove the negative of the proposition being claimed: Example: "Paula says the umpire made the correct call, but this can't be true, because Paula wasn't even watching the game." Assuming the premise is correct, Paula's evidence is valueless, but the umpire may nonetheless have made the right call. Colloquially In common language, any personal attack, regardless of whether it is part of an argument, is often referred to as ad hominem.[3] Types of ad hominems Three traditionally identified varieties are ad hominem abusive (or ad personam), ad hominem circumstantial, and ad hominem tu quoque. Ad hominem abusive Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves insulting or belittling one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensibly damning character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions. This tactic is frequently employed as a propaganda tool among politicians who are attempting to influence the voter base in their favor through an appeal to emotion rather than by logical means, especially when their own position is logically weaker than their opponent's. Another example is calling conspiranoia to a conspiracy theory that one does not like. Examples: * "You can't believe Jack when he says God exists because he doesn't even have a job." * "Candidate Jane Jones's proposal X is ridiculous. She was caught cheating on her taxes in 2003." Ad hominem circumstantial Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially, ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. The reason that this is fallacious in syllogistic logic is that pointing out that one's opponent is disposed to make a certain argument does not make the argument, from a logical point of view, any less credible; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source). On the other hand, where the source taking a position seeks to convince us by a claim of authority, or personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero.[4] Examples: * "Tobacco company representatives should not be believed when they say smoking doesn't seriously affect your health, because they're just defending their own multi-million-dollar financial interests." * "He's physically addicted to nicotine. Of course he defends smoking!” * "What do you know about politics? You're too young to vote!" Mandy Rice-Davies's famous testimony, during the Profumo Affair, "Well, he would [say that], wouldn't he?", is an example of a valid circumstantial argument. Her point is that since a man in a prominent position, accused of an affair with a callgirl, would deny the claim whether it was true or false, his denial, in itself, carries little evidential weight against the claim of an affair. Note, however, that this argument is valid only insofar as it devalues the denial; it does not bolster the original claim. To construe evidentiary invalidation of the denial as evidentiary validation of the original claim is fallacious (on several different bases, including that of argumentum ad hominem); however likely the man in question would be to deny an affair that did in fact happen, he could only be more likely to deny an affair that never did. Ad hominem tu quoque Main article: tu quoque Ad hominem tu quoque (lit: "You too!") refers to a claim that the source making the argument has spoken or acted in a way inconsistent with the argument. In particular, if Source A criticizes the actions of Source B, a tu quoque response is that Source A has acted in the same way. Examples: * "You say that stealing is wrong, but you do it as well." * "He says we shouldn't enslave people, yet he himself owns slaves" Guilt by association Main article: Association fallacy Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy, if the argument attacks a source because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument. This form of the argument is as follows: Source A makes claim P. Group B also make claim P. Therefore, source A is a member of group B. Example: "You say the gap between the rich and poor is unacceptable, but communists also say this, therefore you are a communist" This fallacy can also take another form: Source A makes claim P. Group B make claims P and Q Therefore, Source A makes claim Q. Examples: "You say the gap between the rich and poor is unacceptable, but communists also say this, and they believe in revolution. Thus, you believe in revolution." A similar tactic may be employed to encourage someone to renounce an opinion, or force them to choose between renouncing an opinion or admitting membership in a group. For example: "You say the gap between the rich and poor is unacceptable. You don't really mean that, do you? Communists say the same thing. You're not a communist, are you?" Guilt by association may be combined with ad hominem abusive. For example: "You say the gap between the rich and poor is unacceptable, but communists also say this, and therefore you are a communist. Communists are unlikeable, and therefore everything they say is false, and therefore everything you say is false." A reductio ad Hitlerum argument can be seen as an example of a "guilt by association" fallacy, since it attacks a viewpoint simply because it was supposedly espoused by Adolf Hitler, as if it is impossible that such a man could have held any viewpoint that is correct. [edit] Inverse ad hominem An inverse ad hominem argument praises a source in order to add support for that source's argument or claim. A fallacious inverse ad hominem argument may go something like this: "That man was smartly-dressed and charming, so I'll accept his argument that I should vote for him" As with regular ad hominem arguments, not all cases of inverse ad hominem are fallacious. Consider the following: "Elizabeth has never told a lie in her entire life, and she says she saw him take the bag. She must be telling the truth." Here the arguer is not suggesting we accept Elizabeth's argument, but her testimony. Her being an honest person is relevant to the truth of the conclusion (that he took the bag), just as her having bad eyesight (a regular case of ad hominem) would give reason not to believe her. However, the last part of the argument is false even if the premise is true, since having never told a lie before does not mean she isn't now. Appeal to authority is a type of inverse ad hominem argument." ________________________________________________________________ Have a nice day