A bunch of folks off the HVAC board (not all of them obviously, just the ones whose daily reading consists only of the Hannity and Coulter “Talking Points Of The Day”) continue to get on my case even though I have honored their request to “pack up” (as James 4789432 put it) and I have now left them to wade in their own lies. So this guy sysint from the HVAC board won’t let up (see comments under “Conversation Cut Off”). This is just too funny to believe. I mean, I couldn’t make this stuff up. He writes:

Read your own rhetoric and maybe you will understand. Apparently you suffer the same ?blindness? of your accusers. Isn?t Ad Hominem a personal attack? You haven?t made personal attacks?

So I do him the courtesy of a reply and note the following:

Look up Ad Hominem sometime. Or here?s a definition for you from www.dictionary.com: ad hom?i?nem adj. – Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents? motives.

So no, I have not made ?ad hominem? attacks. In post after post, I appealed to people?s logic and reason. And time and time again, all the Neo-Cons over there could muster were ?appealing to personal considerations rather than logic or reason.? We?re talking out and out name-calling and baiting (which I have detailed here). No doubt about it. And before you take any of my words from that site or this site out of context, please remember that I have posted links here to that site (which I do not visit anymore) so the whole public record is there. I stand by what I said 100%. You haven?t a leg to stand on.

So he comes back with what appears to be a well thought out explaination of how he already understood what ad hominem meant, but in a typical display of intellectual dishonesty, doesn’t note that his ENTIRE COMMENT comes from this website
He writes:

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of ?argument? has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A?s claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

?so I do understand Ad Hominem.

At any rate, so you understand I am discussing your summary on this web page, not at the HVAC web site. I don?t see much difference between you and them except that your nose is perched somewhat higher.

Classic. So classic. But perhaps the FUNNIEST bit, as well as the most telling of how the Neo-Cons slur the truth (or lie by omission) is the fact that he didn’t include with the quote the example that was listed on the page from which he lifted:

Bill: “I believe that abortion is morally wrong.”
Dave: “Of course you would say that, you’re a priest.”
Bill: “What about the arguments I gave to support my position?”
Dave: “Those don’t count. Like I said, you’re a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can’t believe what you say.”

Let me just rephrase that just a little bit:

Vols: “I believe that the death penalty is morally wrong.”
GOPHack: “Of course you would say that, you’re a flaming lib!”
Vols: “What about the arguments I gave to support my position?”
GOPHack: “Those don’t count. Like I said, you’re a flaming lib, so you have to say that the death penalty is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to Fat Teddy who is a killer anyway, so I can’t believe what you say.”

Classic. Perfect. QED.