You're doing something right if you're attracting that kind of attention.
Disclaimer: I am not a logician, nor do I play one on TV. 
That said...
Actually, Mark, your explanation of the ad hominem fallacy is incorrect. An ad hominem argument argues that a statement or position is wrong because of the special circumstances of the person making the statement or taking a position, thus:
Man 1: [makes statement about ice cream]
Man 2: That's not true because you are an idiot [or Democrat, Republican, can't tie your shoes, have red hair, are biased against/for ice cream, whatever]. An ad hominem argument ignores the facts at issue and argues the nature, circumstances, personal characteristics of the arguer _instead_.
Saying someone is an idiot after they have offered proof (or at least substantive evidence) does not _require_ an explanation of their error to avoid being an ad hominem argument. But either way can lead to a fight. (Not that ba fight is always bad. Just be sure winning it is worth it.)
Oh, and BTW, 1=1 may indeed "equal" three for... very large values for 1.
*heh*
It's too bad that another web site/commenter led you astray on the nature of the ad hominem fallacy. That happens. There are a lot of websites offering counsel about logical fallacies and some are good, but I've found dead tree references to be most reliable in the past. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (10 volumes and in most libraries) deals with logic, logical fallacies, etc., pretty well, IMO.
I think the way it was presented was close enough, the therefore your wrong being implied after the idiot comment. At least that's how I understood it, the first time I saw it in a thread elsewhere, and I've explained that to someone in another post that I just got finished.
Hiya Mark..either way the attack is due to the inability to form a rational argument is it not?..
Commenting by HaloScan
