The implication of your position (i.e., that my argument is Ad Hom) is that the validity or merit of someone's opinion of Ayn Rand's work is independent of whet

The implication of your position (i.e., that my argument is Ad Hom) is that the validity or merit of someone's opinion of Ayn Rand's work is independent of whether they have read her work or not is absurd on the face of it. It implies that people can have valid or valuable opinions on subjects of which they are completely ignorant. These implications are independent of whether my claim is true or false (which, I agree, is a disputable point or at least one that must be validated). > Meanwhile I stand by it... You can stand all you want but your position is not defensible in logic. I will repeat what I previously stated: You do not know what Ad Hom means. I know this for a fact because you fail to see an obvious implication of your position. We can address the validity of my claim but only if you see that my argument is not Ad Hom. If not then there is not much else to discuss.