Okay, I'll try to refrain from that where it's unwarranted. That's a fair critique. Though you didn't address my argument here. You seem to be thinking that th

Okay, I'll try to refrain from that where it's unwarranted. That's a fair critique. Though you didn't address my argument here. You seem to be thinking that that definition means that a character attack at literally any point in an essay or report constitutes an ad hominem. It's not: the 'rather' implies a substitution, where the character attack essentially is the reasoning used. If I do an investigative report on a campaigning politician, detailing that he once beat his wife, neglected his kids, cheated on his taxes, etc. and then concluded that "his morals appear to be rather severely in question", that's a character attack, but it's not an ad hominem.