[vog]

> Also, it wasn't an ad hominem ...

I don't get it. What's the point of replying to a perceived false accusation of ad hominem with three more ad hominems?

"Get your fallacies straight", "I guess this is why you have ...", "(the new trick you have learned)"

[mylittlepony]

Let me give you an honest advice on how to not be a fallacies noob. Try explaining what's wrong with their argument, without incurring in the arrogant attitude of just mentioning the name of the fallacy and downvoting. That way you will stop trying to make every argument fit into a fallacy, and start truly understanding what (if anything) is wrong with it.

I must have corrected the 'ad hominem' thing at least 5 times today, so I'm tired. It's not ad hominem if it's not trying to undermine an argument (it's just insulting or trolling), and it's not ad hominem either if it's relevant (eg: programmer does not know the basics, that fact comes to light, and is used against him in a programming discussion).