This needs to be in several FAQs if it isn't already.
Tez wrote: > An ad hominem fallacy is of the form: > > Person P made argument A > > Person P is ignorant/poor/gay/female/stupid/handicapped/etc > > Therefore argument A is invalid. > > > It is *not* ad hominem to say: > > Person Q made argument B > > Argument B is incoherent/lacks reasoning/lacks evidence/is purely > assertion/is muddled/makes categorical errors/equivocates/is > nonsense/is irrelevant/etc > > Therefore person Q is ignorant/poorly > read/uninformed/unreasonable/stupid/irrelevant/etc > > > Sure, such a statement may be insulting. But it isn't invalid.
> > -- > > Gerry Myerson (email@example.com) (i -> u for email)
This fool eventually got around to alleging that somebody's contributions to this debate ought to be dismissed because he was displaying crankish traits. For somebody who entered THIS way (complaining about ad hominem attacks) to exit THAT way (committing one) is just pathetic.