This is spot on: > Not only does he get this wrong, but in general he seemed to not understand what Ad Hominem is. For instance: > He mentions Zero Punctuati

This is spot on: > Not only does he get this wrong, but in general he seemed to not understand what Ad Hominem is. For instance: > He mentions Zero Punctuation, which is a deliberately aggressive but generally insightful video game reviewer. The ZP reviewer fellow, very entertaining, mentions the flaws of something - bad pace, unoriginal story, repetitive gameplay - but that's NOT ad hominem. Saying, "The New Mario Brothers isn't very innovative" isn't ad hominem. Saying, "The New Mario Brothers is a boring suckfest" also isn't ad hominem. Ad hominem is, "Mario Brothers? Why even bother playing it? Nintendo couldn't make a good game to save their life." I think the author is saying that you can disagree, but he doesn't exactly know what ad hominem is. Ad hominem would be saying, "Look, he's a Christian. No way his chemistry research could be any good." --> Attacks the person, not their argument/viewpoint/science/work. Sometimes it's valid, but very rarely, and most of the time you'd be better off just refuting their points instead of slinging mud at them as a person.