Gravity wheel of Mikhail Dmitriyev

[Omnibus]

No, you are the one, resorting to your own confused understanding of logic, who tries to justify fallacies. A logical argument cannot be constructed based on some random citation from the internet and pronouncing it as the be all and end all, as you're doing. I pointed that to you repeatedly but you fail to comprehend it. There's more to logic, especially in a scientific argument, than you're used to comprehend. Logic isn't some kind of a metaphysical pursuit with notions put in drawers for you to pull out and use. This is especially applicable to notions such as ad hominem, subject to subtleties way beyond your comprehension, obviously. So, yes, you lost that argument and hopefully you could learn something from it, namely, not to use mechanically definitions from random sites on the net. Learning by heart words such as 'red herring', 'argumentum ad nauseam' etc. and using them with the intention to appear more learned doesn't mean you understand their real meaning. You've heard bits and pieces about such 'elevated' words and have decided you can use them indiscriminately so that you can win arguments more easily. No you can't, as it became obvious. So, in my usual tone (I already explained why I do that) I have to tell you, restrain from cluttering threads with your gibberish because in this way you're destroying the discussions there in this way. Discussions can be destroyed not only by incompetent people, such as the one already mentioned, blabbering but in many other ways, including by know-it-all's such as you trying to appear learned but in fact only demonstrating their shallow thinking. 

[ramset]

W,Quote,
you know that's a logical fallacy don't you? argumentum ad baculum or appeal to force or fear.
---------------------------
AHhh.True
Only works in close quarter arguements,and then only briefly!

But if we were all in the same room?somebody would try it! [we need a toothless smiley guy]
Chetty

[WilbyInebriated]

No, you are the one, resorting to your own confused understanding of logic, who tries to justify fallacies. A logical argument cannot be constructed based on some random citation from the internet and pronouncing it as the be all and end all, as you're doing. I pointed that to you repeatedly but you fail to comprehend it. There's more to logic,especially in a scientific argument, than you're used to comprehend. Logic isn't some kind of a metaphysical pursuit with notions put in drawers for you to pull out and use. This is especially applicable to notions such as ad hominem, subject to subtleties way beyond your comprehension, obviously. So, yes, you lost that argument and hopefully you could learn something from it, namely, not to use mechanically definitions from random sites on the net. Learning by heart words such as 'red herring', 'ad nauseam' etc. and using them with the intention to appear more learned doesn't mean you understand their real meaning. You've heard bits and pieces about such 'elevated' words and have decided you can use them indiscriminately so that you can win arguments more easily. No you can't, as it became obvious. So, in my usual tone (I already explained why I do that) I have to tell you, restrain from cluttering threads with your gibberish because in this way you're destroying the discussions there in this way. Discussions can be destroyed not only by incompetent people, such as the one already mentioned, blabbering but in many other ways, including by know-it-all's such as you trying to appear learned but in fact only demonstrating their shallow thinking.

i'll repeat my request that you post "the real meaning of ad hominem" for us less enlightened ones since you conveniently omitted that from your reply... AGAIN, for the fourth time. furthermore, if you think the definition the whole world adheres to is frivolous and expect us to adhere to the 'omni definition', you will need to define how and why the existing definition is incorrect... as well as actually providing us with your definition.

[Omnibus]

You're wrong. That is not a definition the whole world adheres to. The definition you cited came from a random site and you, not the whole world, chose to adhere to. As to what more there could be in ad hominem there was an explanation I already gave. Go back, read it again and get the answer to your question. Repeating the question over and over again doesn't mean I haven't already answered it.

[WilbyInebriated]

You're wrong. That is not a definition the whole world adheres to. The definition you cited came from a random site and you, not the whole world, chose to adhere to. As to what more there could be in ad hominem there was an explanation I already gave. Go back, read it again and get the answer to your question. Repeating the question over and over again doesn't mean I haven't already answered it.

omni...  the record shows i posted 4, that's FOUR links regarding the logical fallacy known as ad hominem. i even quoted the relevant part of the definition under EACH link to rebut your erroneous claim that all ad hominems are fallacious. if your lazy convenience requires it i will link you those posts... does your lazy convenience require it? apparently...

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#hominem
"It's not always invalid to refer to the circumstances of an individual who is making a claim. If someone is a known perjurer or liar, that fact will reduce their credibility as a witness. It won't, however, prove that their testimony is false in this case. It also won't alter the soundness of any logical arguments they may make."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
"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). "

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/ad-hominem/
"It is important to note that the label “ad hominem” is ambiguous, and that not every kind of ad hominem argument is fallacious."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
"The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy,[2] but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.[3]"


furthermore, you have yet to post your definition...
so, i'll repeat my request that you post "the real meaning of ad hominem" for us less enlightened ones since you conveniently omitted that from your reply... AGAIN, for the fifth time. and finally, if you think the definition the whole world adheres to is frivolous and expect us to adhere to the 'omni definition', you will need to define how and why the existing definition is incorrect... as well as actually providing us with your definition... you have yet to do either, even after being asked for such repeatedly.