[AdieuToLogic]

>> This is an ad hominem which assumes intent unknown to anyone other than the person to whom you replied.

> What am I missing here?

Intent. Neither you nor I know what the person to whom you replied had.

> Those weren't curt summaries, they were quotes! And not pull quotes, they were the unedited beginning of each claim!

Maybe the more important part of that sentence was:

  Subsequently railing against comment rankings ...

But you do you.

I commented as I did in hope it helped address what I interpreted as confusion regarding how the posts were being received. If it did not help, I apologize.

[anoncareer0212]

>>> This is an ad hominem which assumes intent unknown to anyone other than the person to whom you replied.

>> [elided] What am I missing here?

> Intent. Neither you nor I know what the person to whom you replied had.

Here's the part you elided:

"I looked up the definition [of lying]. It says "used with reference to a situation involving deception or founded on a mistaken impression."

That makes it quite clear whether or not I'm missing "intent".

This also makes it quite clear that I am not making an ad hominem.

I am using a simple, everyday, word used to describe the act of advancing false claims, whether through deception or mistaken impression.