wrote on Sep 4^th, 2002 at 7:13am:

Skeptic, Ad hominem refers to trying to discredit the message by discrediting the bearer of the message.  The readers of this bulletin board, I believe, are intelligent enough to determine on their own whether the message is worthy or not.  I prefer to keep polemics out of the discussions.

The above definition is essentially the one I already presented (please see Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies -- argumentum ad hominem).  In order to demonstrate an argument is "ad hominem", one must show that it is irrelevant to the point at hand.  Since your evasions and the reasons behind them are very much the point (indeed, you made them the point), your intellectual honesty is most certainly relevant to the discussion.

As for polemics, weren't you the one who ducked under the umbrella of "national security" and cried "ad hominem" (easily the most common term in internet debate after "Hitler" and "nazis") when your motives for such were reasonably questioned?  Are we now to accept your lack of argument as an argument?  At least for me, that simply won't fly -- I've seen "I know but can't tell you how" used in lieu of real argumentation too many times to give such smoke-and-mirror games any credence.

Logical and serious points have been raised regarding R/I efficacy and implications not only for national security but individual fairness and due process, as well.  Reasonable questions have been put to you that could be answered with no conceivable harm to national security.  Either respond in kind or you have lost this debate.

Skeptic