Once and for all there is a difference between a personal attack and an observation based on facts.
Observation based on a fact: You will not back track a few posts proving you are lazy. See, this is an observation that is quite apparent.
Personal attack: You are ugly and your mother dresses you funny.
I do not know what you look like and have no idea how your mother dresses you so this would be a personal attack.
There will be fewer tears and hurt feelings if you can understand the difference.
If this is your best then I have no further use for you.
Good day.
From: http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html
Personal Attack (Argumentum Ad Hominem, literally, “argument toward the man.” Also called “Poisoning the Well”): Attacking or praising the people who make an argument, rather than discussing the argument itself. This practice is fallacious because the personal character of an individual is logically irrelevant to the truth or falseness of the argument itself. The statement “2+2=4” is true regardless if is stated by criminals, congressmen, or pastors.
From: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html
A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person’s claim or claims. This line of “reasoning” is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. After all, no matter how repugnant an individual might be, he or she can still make true claims.
Not all ad Hominems are fallacious. In some cases, an individual’s characteristics can have a bearing on the question of the veracity of her claims. For example, if someone is shown to be a pathological liar, then what he says can be considered to be unreliable. However, such attacks are weak, since even pathological liars might speak the truth on occasion.
In general, it is best to focus one’s attention on the content of the claim and not on who made the claim. It is the content that determines the truth of the claim and not the characteristics of the person making the claim.
From: http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html
Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.
1. The personal attack is also often termed an “ad personem argument”: the statement or argument at issue is dropped from consideration or is ignored, and the locutor’s character or circumstances are used to influence opinion.
2. The fallacy draws its appeal from the technique of “getting personal.” The assumption is that what the locutor is saying is entirely or partially dictated by his character or special circumstances and so should be disregarded.
Eaker, just do a Google search for it if you aren’t yet convinced.
Whether I’m “lazy” or not is totally irrelevant to the points I make. It doesn’t matter if the personal attacks are true or not, because they have nothing to do with the discussion.
Feel free to thank me very much for taking the extra time to try and educate you! To quote Mark Levin, “THANK ME!”