Hello, I’ve seen you post a few times using the same format, so I believe this is a stylistic choice you’ve made. I’m not sure I should be engaging, but in case you’re not trolling, pointing out that communication you’ve provided is difficult to understand, and then pointing out a stylistic choice you use to communicate is not an ad hominem, it’s pointing out that your communication was difficult to parse and the ellipses (part of the communication) did not help.
yes they’re attacking your argument and position as incoherent because of the use of language, terms and punctuation render it unintelligible, not because of who you are as a person.
That’s not what as ad hominem means
“Also I don’t understand why you’re using ellipses that way. I’m so confused.”
Hello, I’ve seen you post a few times using the same format, so I believe this is a stylistic choice you’ve made. I’m not sure I should be engaging, but in case you’re not trolling, pointing out that communication you’ve provided is difficult to understand, and then pointing out a stylistic choice you use to communicate is not an ad hominem, it’s pointing out that your communication was difficult to parse and the ellipses (part of the communication) did not help.
That’s not an ad hominem.
ad hominem /hŏm′ə-nĕm″, -nəm/ adjective
yes they’re attacking your argument and position as incoherent because of the use of language, terms and punctuation render it unintelligible, not because of who you are as a person.
which they didn’t do. they said they didn’t understand you, explained why they didn’t understand, and then asked that you either explain or restate.
you abusing the definition of ad hominem seems like a gish gallop
…you seem to fit the definition…
…what is?..
…you are attacking me for how i respond, seems, quite, umm…ad hominem…