In responding to the questions posed by ACT UP Wisconsin prior to the 2009 annual meeting of the AIDS Network board of directors, questions we hoped would be addressed at the meeting, President Ellen Berz stated:
“…..I can only assume that your e-mail was actually intended to mislead some other audience. That is unfortunate.”
Instead of addressing the issues, a baseless charge is lodged against the messenger. This is the latest in a litany of ad hominen attacks that have been used by AIDS Network to divert attention away from the issues we have raised and the many unanswered questions
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the person” or “argument against the person”) is an argument which links the validity of a premise to an irrelevent characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.
AIDS Network makes the claim that members of ACT UP Wisconsin consist of a handful of embittered dissidents. Karen Dotson is quick to claim that the issues I have raised are a result of a “mental health disorder” and a “psychological diagnosis”. Bob Bowers and others have been told that “they don’t know half the story” about me; that Della Haugen is a “disgruntled former employee”. They have taken garden variety ad hominem attacks and ramped them up to the next level:
Ad hominem abusive
Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually involves insulting or belittling one’s opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible 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.
AIDS Network has added “argumenten ad hominem” to their playbook. In fact, they’ve perfected its usage. They have attacked the messengers instead of addressing the issues directly, honestly and with an understanding that much good can come out of respectful debate.
The behavior of AIDS Network has been anything but respectful of differing opinions. Karen Dotson, Ellen Berz, Gerry Haney, Mary Vasquez and Tamim Sifri, the officers of AIDS Network, have employed this tired, old tactic to divert attention from looming issues.
AIDS Network can attack us. They can discount our issues through character assassination. What we have going for us are the facts and the firm belief that ultimately, changes will be made and the 1290 southern Wisconsin residents living with HIV/AIDS will finally be receiving a level of service on par with other areas of the state.
