[The_Eaglet]

....."Serious readers for centuries are alert to recognize that ad hominem attacks generally mask an inability to counter an argument on logical or evidentiary grounds.

Funny to see Corsi use the word evidentiary. I thought he was allergic to evidence?

Toddsterpatriot just provided an example to support Corsi's observation from history.

[Toddsterpatriot]

The less evidence Corsi can find, the more that proves the power of the conspiracy.

[CharlesWayneCT]

No, that's not an "ad hominen attack", that's a sarcastic comment.

An "ad hominen" attack is one where you make true statements about your opposition which cast them in a bad light.

It's misuse is based on an assumption of an argument about facts. When arguing over one's interpretations and opinions, commenting on the person's qualifications to make those interpretations and their ability to form correct opinions is actually a rational strategy.

It's why in a court case, the opposing counsel will seek to discredit the witnesses.

A Sarcastic Comment, on the other hand, is one that may or may not have a basis in fact, but is offered to make people laugh by way of ridicule.