“a fallacy known as argument from intimidation.”
You can’t have it both ways. Either it is an argument, or it is not. That said, there was no intent to intimidate anyone. I merely conveyed information.
This is a laff riot. First, you do understand that pretty much ALL the non-arguments described as fallacies take the form of "argument from" something. It's just a standard way of discussing logical fallacies. So I have to take it you are either not familiar with this convention (which would be fine), or if you are, then I have no idea why you are playing it this way.
Second, you "merely conveying information" line is a classic. Gotta love it. Because in the first place, it's not information. It's your belief. Second, it is too easy to say you meant nothing by it, after the damage is done:
Pro 26:18 Like a madman who throws firebrands, arrows, and death,
Pro 26:19 Is the man who deceives his neighbor, And says, "I was only joking!"
So if you really want to have serious discussion, you will find it is not only possible but desirable to avoid ad hominem.
“Any reasonable reader”
Sorry, but you’re not in a position to be making statements about what reasonable people would or would not do.
“understand the ad hominem aspect of accusing someone directly and personally of satanic delusion”
When people think there is no connection between constant prevarication and the work of Satan, I don’t much care for their opinions.
“First, you do understand that pretty much ALL the non-arguments described as fallacies take the form of “argument from” something.”
Whereas you do not understand that they are not “non-arguments,” but rather invalid arguments, in that they rest on logical fallacies. Invalid, but still arguments.
“Because in the first place, it’s not information. It’s your belief.”
In that it is correct, it is information.
“Second, it is too easy to say you meant nothing by it, after the damage is done”
I never said I meant nothing by it. I meant a lot by it. I meant exactly what I said.
“And says, “I was only joking!”
Never said it; never implied it.
Now, I’m going to have to shine you on. You’re just not up to discussing issues at an intellectually adequate level.