secondly, i already explained to you how what you wrote qualifies as ad hominem. since you appear to be having comprehension problems, i'll be happy to explain it again. whether i know anything about subject X has no bearing on the validity of either my starting assumptions or the logical chain that follows and consequently my conclusions; the only acceptable way to challenge them is to either challenge the veracity of one (or more) of the preconditions or one of the reasoning steps leading to the conclusions. someone knowing nothing about a subject certainly does decrease the probability that the preconditions will be correct, but while it is counter-intuitive, the probability of veracity has no bearing on actual veracity. as an example, a 15th century peasant's statement "there'll be rain today" is either true or false depending on whether it does indeed rain that day, rather than categorically false because he knows nothing about meteorology. you made an assertion about my person (whether i know something about subject X or Y *is* an attribute of my person), that assertion had no bearing on the validity of my arguments and you failed to address my arguments in any valid manner, therefore it follows that what you wrote was purely ad hominem. quod erat demonstrandum. iterum.-p
