Let me ask you something. The thread I posted on. Was it re: the quote you keep posting, or was it re: an Obot lie. Feel free to go back and check. But whether or not you do, get your facts straight and give me a correct answer.
If calling you a troll is your idea of ad hominem, then answer this question. When given the opportunity to demonstrate your conservative bona fides, why did you pass?
Was it true that purported letter was from Carl Gallups? No. (And if you look to Post #48 on that thread, you'll see I was acknowledging the possibility the letter wasn't from Gallups).
Was it true that even before that alleged Gallups letter that Gallups/PPSimmons had reported (January 9) that the CCP would release it's "universe shattering" findings in March of 2014? Yes, that is true.
So was it a "lie" for anyone in February to claim that the CCP had promised a March release date? No, that was not a lie.
If calling you a troll is your idea of ad hominem, . .
"Ad hominem" (literally, "against the person") broadly speaking involves any attempt to deflect away from a person's arguments by focusing appeals instead to the person or the person's character. So, yes, any time you haul out the "troll" label, rather than focus on the argument, and any time you haul out the "you're not a true conservative" stuff, rather than addressing my arguments, you're engaging in ad hominem fallacy.
When given the opportunity to demonstrate your conservative bona fides, why did you pass?
Because the validity of an argument should not hinge on who is making it. That's the whole ad hominem fallacy in a nutshell -- that somehow Argument A can be disregarded when made by Person X, but only need be dealt with substantively when made by Person Y.
To me, you're just trying to find a reason to duck out. No matter what I offered (and on F.R., my relatively few posts are just on Birther issues), the easy prediction is you'd just say "Aha! See! Just like I thought" and duck out anyway. So I find your M.O. here disingenuous.