> ad hominem. that's rich in the context of this thread. in any case: so what? first, an ad hominem is an informal fallacy and, therefore, not really a fallacy. is it a fallacy when a judge instructs a jury to dismiss all the testimony of a perjurer, even if he only lied once? no. and neither is it a fallacy to point out that a jew, who by virtue of his religion is an enemy of all men, wrote the book that you recommend. what would be said if referred anons to a jewish source? > they're true. says who?
United States