Since I appear to be the original source (#3 above) of this tempest in a teapot I’ll weigh in because Lex is – among many wonderful things – a very gracious and ridiculously tolerant host.

In her comment #4, Army Girl in says the following in response to my comment #3:

Sounds more like sore losing rather than careful consideration of the pros and cons.

Clearly, he’s a politician… how brilliant to note.

O.P., please carefully note the sarcasm and the accusations of being a sore loser. When in fact all that was mentioned in #3, by me, were the facts. Yet AG resorts to definition #2 of ad hominem in your lengthy comment at #23:

…attacking an opponent’s motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain…

Motives: I’m a sore loser.
Character: the sarcastic comment on my intellect.

Indeed, AG provided further ad hominem in her comment #9:

Let’s at least give it till he gets inaugurated before we foam at the mouth… shall we?

As with everyone else here, I commented on my opinion and made my own observations about the situation. Agree or don’t agree, that’s how it works.

At least keeping it civil would be nice. Lex has a great place here – we should all do our best to disagree as we wish in a factual way, without resorting to lecturing on comportment and manners. I for one would suffer serious withdrawal if Lex decided he’d had enough of all of us.

Lex – hope I haven’t outstayed my welcome on this one. Guiness for strength coming your way to make up for any atonement on my part and for your forbearance.

Perhaps there, someone who likes purple will read your prose. Me? I scan for length, consider the source, sigh and move on.

When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,’ it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’

‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master – that’s all.’

– Lewis Carroll, from “Through the Looking Glass”

ad hominem |ˈad ˈhämənəm|
adverb & adjective
1 (of an argument or reaction) arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic.
• attacking an opponent’s motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain : vicious ad hominem attacks.
2 relating to or associated with a particular person : [as adv. ] the office was created ad hominem for Fenton. | [as adj. ] an ad hominem response.

ORIGIN late 16th cent.: Latin, literally ‘to the person.’

Depending on how you define verbal or written intercourse, it may be a conversation, it may be an argument, it may be a debate, it may be a discourse, it may even (gasp) be a rant, a screed, or a polemic. What ever you call it, to prevent meaningless shouting matches, snide innuendos, or degeneration of ideas into slime and mud, reasonable folk establish rules of discourse or debate.

Many moons ago, I proposed that Paul Graham’s rules be considered. He grades the strength of an argument (here taken as scientist or engineer’s might use) from D0 to D5. D0 is a rank insult, D1 is an ad hominem statement which fails to significantly contribute or inform on the topic on hand. Obviously invitations to Army Girl to leave the discussion, such as advanced by geo6 to wit:

ag, I’ll go further than Kris. I suggest you take your irritation elsewhere, before you marginalize yourself out of relevance with your comments.

would fall into Graham’s D0 or D1 classification. Michelle (com 18) elevates the discourse by asking a series of rhetorical questions, which of course nobody wishes to answer… The comment is cogent, and should be recognized as a Paul Graham D4.

Further insight into this issue of ad hominem statements can be found at logicalfallacies.org which will entertain and instruct all of us on logical discourse. On the left hand side of the Home Page is a Menu, and clicking on Taxonomy identifies a host of different forms of fallacious arguments. Among them is our “darling”, ad hominem. Clicking on the box that contains the dreaded word will give a reasonable discussion as to its validity in any discourse.

One could turn to that fountain head of knowledge, Wikepedia, but I will leave that to others to explore and comment. For those who wallow in the beauty of Latin, a trip to said source should be of interest. In the view of this (cough, cough) scholarly source ad hominem is a catch all phrase for three different types of spurious statements. They are all listed in Latin to help us give a patina of profundity to our retorts.

In my view, to justify the use of the term ad hominem it must meet a two part test. First, it contributes nothing to the discussion. Second, it in some fashion diminishes the character of the person it is directed to. Two simple examples will suffice.

”Based on past experience, I prefer not to read your comments or explore the links you have posted.”
…
”Based on past experience, I prefer not to read your comments or explore the links you have posted because you are a dodo head.”

The first expression is neutral, and a polite signal that the individual prefers not to enter into a discussion. The second diminishes the character of an individual, and as such meets the two part criteria of an ad hominem statement.

Now then, within the above framework, is classifying some one’s statement as an ad hominem attack a breach of propriety? Of course not, it is a verbal signal that the respondent has identified a retort as not contributing to the central discussion, and that he or she will not respond in kind. Metaphorically speaking, it is a brief rain cloud that annoys participants at a verbal picnic, but has no real impact on the joy of the communal gathering.

But, the reality of how ad hominem is used in this blog belongs to our webmaster, Lex. I look forward to his direction, as I am puzeled by his com 22.

OP, your village said it’s missing you.