The mistake you're making is missing that the whole issue is one of character. He has not presented any irrefutable or falsifiable facts (indeed, he speaks in t

The mistake you're making is missing that the whole issue is one of character. He has not presented any irrefutable or falsifiable facts (indeed, he speaks in thinly veiled code, so we can't be completely sure who he's talking about, even though it's really a pretty good bet). He's speaking on the character of the people he worked with. His own character is therefore completely on the table for criticism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Valid_types_of_ad_hominem_arguments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Valid_types_of_ad_h... > Ad hominem arguments are relevant where the person being criticised is advancing arguments from authority, or testimony based on personal experience, rather than proposing a formal syllogism.