No, you are the one, resorting to your own confused understanding of logic, who tries to justify fallacies. A logical argument cannot be constructed based on some random citation from the internet and pronouncing it as the be all and end all, as you're doing. I pointed that to you repeatedly but you fail to comprehend it. There's more to logic, especially in a scientific argument, than you're used to comprehend. Logic isn't some kind of a metaphysical pursuit with notions put in drawers for you to pull out and use. This is especially applicable to notions such as ad hominem, subject to subtleties way beyond your comprehension, obviously. So, yes, you lost that argument and hopefully you could learn something from it, namely, not to use mechanically definitions from random sites on the net. Learning by heart words such as 'red herring', 'argumentum ad nauseam' etc. and using them with the intention to appear more learned doesn't mean you understand their real meaning. You've heard bits and pieces about such 'elevated' words and have decided you can use them indiscriminately so that you can win arguments more easily. No you can't, as it became obvious. So, in my usual tone (I already explained why I do that) I have to tell you, restrain from cluttering threads with your gibberish because in this way you're destroying the discussions there in this way. Discussions can be destroyed not only by incompetent people, such as the one already mentioned, blabbering but in many other ways, including by know-it-all's such as you trying to appear learned but in fact only demonstrating their shallow thinking. 

No, you are the one, resorting to your own confused understanding of logic, who tries to justify fallacies. A logical argument cannot be constructed based on some random citation from the internet and pronouncing it as the be all and end all, as you're doing. I pointed that to you repeatedly but you fail to comprehend it. There's more to logic,especially in a scientific argument, than you're used to comprehend. Logic isn't some kind of a metaphysical pursuit with notions put in drawers for you to pull out and use. This is especially applicable to notions such as ad hominem, subject to subtleties way beyond your comprehension, obviously. So, yes, you lost that argument and hopefully you could learn something from it, namely, not to use mechanically definitions from random sites on the net. Learning by heart words such as 'red herring', 'ad nauseam' etc. and using them with the intention to appear more learned doesn't mean you understand their real meaning. You've heard bits and pieces about such 'elevated' words and have decided you can use them indiscriminately so that you can win arguments more easily. No you can't, as it became obvious. So, in my usual tone (I already explained why I do that) I have to tell you, restrain from cluttering threads with your gibberish because in this way you're destroying the discussions there in this way. Discussions can be destroyed not only by incompetent people, such as the one already mentioned, blabbering but in many other ways, including by know-it-all's such as you trying to appear learned but in fact only demonstrating their shallow thinking.

i'll repeat my request that you post "the real meaning of ad hominem" for us less enlightened ones since you conveniently omitted that from your reply... AGAIN, for the fourth time. furthermore, if you think the definition the whole world adheres to is frivolous and expect us to adhere to the 'omni definition', you will need to define how and why the existing definition is incorrect... as well as actually providing us with your definition.

You're wrong. That is not a definition the whole world adheres to. The definition you cited came from a random site and you, not the whole world, chose to adhere to. As to what more there could be in ad hominem there was an explanation I already gave. Go back, read it again and get the answer to your question. Repeating the question over and over again doesn't mean I haven't already answered it.

omni...  the record shows i posted 4, that's FOUR links regarding the logical fallacy known as ad hominem. i even quoted the relevant part of the definition under EACH link to rebut your erroneous claim that all ad hominems are fallacious. if your lazy convenience requires it i will link you those posts... does your lazy convenience require it? apparently...

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#hominem
"It's not always invalid to refer to the circumstances of an individual who is making a claim. If someone is a known perjurer or liar, that fact will reduce their credibility as a witness. It won't, however, prove that their testimony is false in this case. It also won't alter the soundness of any logical arguments they may make."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
"The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made). "

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/ad-hominem/
"It is important to note that the label “ad hominem” is ambiguous, and that not every kind of ad hominem argument is fallacious."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
"The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy,[2] but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.[3]"


furthermore, you have yet to post your definition...
so, i'll repeat my request that you post "the real meaning of ad hominem" for us less enlightened ones since you conveniently omitted that from your reply... AGAIN, for the fifth time. and finally, if you think the definition the whole world adheres to is frivolous and expect us to adhere to the 'omni definition', you will need to define how and why the existing definition is incorrect... as well as actually providing us with your definition... you have yet to do either, even after being asked for such repeatedly.

Posting links won't do. I told you that already. You need to think with your own head and not be lazily expecting ready answers in links. There are other lazy people in the world too. They copy from each other. That's an easy, although intellectually dishonest way to create websites. In fact that's cluttering the web (the web is cluttered with nonsense, OK, or you disagree with that too). I am telling you once again, you can't prove the veracity of a scientific thesis by just even quoting numerous standard texts, let alone links on the web. That doesn't cut the mustard as far as solid argumentation goes. Your argumentation is weak in trying get away with just citing links, understand that. And, again, don't make me repeat what I already said. Go back, read what I wrote regarding ad hominem and you'll get the answer to the question you're posing.

LMFAO... omni, i have presented no argument, nor are we discussing a scientific thesis... i made a statement, calling out your error. that statement was thus: "incorrect, that would be a different logical fallacy. one known as a red herring... "

which was in response to  your post, which was thus:

Ad hominem attack is to start posting irrelevant links in response to criticism for incompetence.

now, please show us all what my "argument" was... define what the premise was and the conclusion. you don't even know what a logical argument is defined as...

if you can manage that, which i highly doubt, please provide us with your definition of exactly what an ad hominem fallacy is. please provide all qualifications and exceptions.

As a matter of fact the last discussion reveals one substantial flaw in the pursuit of OU -- the neglect of logic and deep thinking so pivotal in getting OU across to society. As I said earlier, the main thing to be understood for a successful winning the society over is the need to focus the discussion in more quantitative terms, into discussing numbered equations. All the enemies of OU, agents and zealous activists try to stay away from such quantitative discussions and always divert the talk into sociological, philosophical, ethical, aesthetical and what not types of discussions, all subject to interpretations. This is how they say the common person would understand it better. This is a very devious tactics used widely. That should be fought fiercely by those who care about OU research. We have other difficulties too, as the difficulty with the likes of Mikhail Dmitriev, Kapanadze and so on holding everybody hostage to their promises. Another difficulty comes from those putting forth ideas and waiting for others to actually manufacture the devices only to claim priority. The diversion towards interpretational discussions, however, is one of the most dangerous and destructive because it preys on the general misunderstanding of science fundamentals and thus can easily win popular support through manipulation. That's why it is so important to spend some time in exposing this devious tactics.

i'll accept that as a tacit admission that you cannot provide a definition.

in conversing with you omni, i am constantly reminded of the saying "you can't use reason to argue somebody out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into"...

One really wonders, was that because of the sheer mediocrity of that person or that was a deliberate act of destruction so that intellectuals worldwide can be controlled more easily.

more logical fallacy from the master... this one is known as bifurcation or false dichotomy. this is committed when the arguer claims that his conclusion is one of only two options, when in fact there are other possibilities...

more logical fallacy from the master... this one is known as bifurcation or false dichotomy. this is committed when the arguer claims that his conclusion is one of only two options, when in fact there are other possibilities...

Well, I may stand corrected on that. I'm curious what more options there could be in addition to Karl Popper's mediocrity or deliberate conspiracy to destroy scientific thought (saying that it may be both seems redundant). That's a worthwhile discussion.

Omni

I am starting to question if you really understand what you have read when you cannot grasp the simple understanding of "the real meaning of ad hominem"

Indeed, the meaning of ad hominem is simple, without the obfuscations of our friend.