Neither do I engage in personal attacks, nor do I respond to them. Those who resort to such tactics lose my respect and sacrifice their own credibility.

Attacking the messenger (or source), ad hominem arguments, and other rhetorical devices of this nature amount to little more than childish name-calling.

In Logic, the ad hominem is the most commonly encountered fallacy; it is usually employed to direct attention away from the substance of an argument and onto the credibility of the person making it. As such, it is a clear signal that the attacker cannot respond factually, and is resorting to character assassination.

I will paraphrase a household rule mentioned recently by one of the more literate regulars here: You cannot just say something sucks; you must say: it sucks because...and lay out your reasons.

Anything less - no matter how wordy - is just mud-slinging.

Sling mud and what do you get? Muddy fingers. Far from undermining the credibility of his intended target, the ad hominem attacker ends up undermining - and exposing - his own position.

Smart people, to say nothing of virtuous people, do not engage in character assassination, smear campaigns, or mud-slinging.

My early Parochial education provided many valuable lessons, among them the wisdom of turning the other cheek. Another was to have pity on those less fortunate than ourselves, and in that spirit, I will close by sharing this nugget of wisdom (which I just made up):

There's no mud to be found
Up on the high ground.

Peace,
S