You said I was attacking you when I never did any such thing, or even came close. It was a false charge.
You accused me of ad hominum which, if you believe it, means you don’t know what it means, and if you do know, then you said it falsely. There was zero ad hominum in my simple, honest question.
I’ll give you this. You’re either copying from thefogbow, or they are copying from you. The similarities to what’s on that site and what you post are beyond uncanny.
“You said I was attacking you when I never did any such thing, or even came close. It was a false charge.”
You went after the person, not the argument, which is what ‘ad-hominem’ means. I had already conceded that ‘attack’ may have been too strong, though it now seems vindicated.
There’s no evidence for SatinDoll’s claim that Judge Gonzalez dismissed Donofrio’s petition in exchange for a promotion. The president doesn’t even select bankruptcy court judges, as I cited.
So again, or rather, still, you go ad-hominem. What about the argument? On what point was I wrong? Do you think the president selects bankruptcy judges? Is there evidence of this exchange of a dismissal for a promotion? Do you think accusing a judge of doing that is not a serious charge? Do you think making a serious charge without evidence is not false witness? Do you think false witness comports with conservative values?