Ad hominem arguments are fellatious. To argue with their output, one needs to pick apart their logic, lingustics and textology, not their biographies. What was the name of that islamic professor whose best argument was "you are a heretic"?
You might want to reconsider the spelling of that...
I'm not sure what, if anything, ad hominem argument has to do with oral sodomy.
To argue with their output, one needs to pick apart their logic, lingustics and textology, not their biographies.
I'm not sure what "textology" is, either.
The author of the article is not mentioning their biases in order to refute their arguments - he is mentioning their biases to demonstrate that the media is obssessively one-sided in their coverage.
His point is that we have seven so-called experts who all take a view antithetical to that of orthodox Christianity while not one scholar is there to take the other side of the argument.
What was the name of that islamic professor whose best argument was "you are a heretic"?
You realize, of course, that this itself is a form of the ad hominem argument?
Why bring Monica Lewinsky into it?
You mean they suck?
It is hardly ad hominem to put out that they belong to the same theological party.