Quoting Andrea (why@bigpond.net.au):
Ad hominem arguments do not advance a line of debate, merely serve to raise the temperature. Maybe due to the instigator's really not having a defensible position. [...] So, while argumentum ad hominem is always poor form, I consider it _very_ poor form, directed towards the OP, one of our number, whose family home was very much threatened by one of the fires here in Victoria, and depending upon the weather, may _still_ be so threatened.
Just a brief note about the actual meaning of the term argumentum ad hominem and what specifically is objectionable about it. Argumentum ad hominem is a subcategory of non-sequitur argument where you say X's assertions should be disbelieved on account of X's personal characteristics _if those weren't relevant_ to X's arguments. If X said you should believe what he said because he is a member of the Liberal Party of Australia, and you rebut him with evidence that he's a leading member of the Communist Party of Australia, that is not an ad hominem argument, because you directly addressed X's reasoning, even if most people dislike Communists. On the other hand, if X's reasoning had nothing to do with party affiliation, and you objected to his line of reasoning on grounds of his being a Communist, that _is_ argumentum ad hominem. Argumentum ad hominem is objectionable because it attempts to distract listeners from the real discussion, not because it's poor form and attacks people personally. (I have great sympathy for people currently facing fire danger. Stay safe out there!) And thank you for your comments, Andrea. -- Rick Moen "So, this SEO copywriter walks into a bar, grill, rick@linuxmafia.com pub, public house, Irish bar, bartender, drinks, McQ! (4x80) beer, wine, liquor." -- Michael Karlsson