[Delacon]

I disagree you lame assed latin loving sob. :)

[dr_lew]

Well, as to my theory, you may be right to disagree. The Galileo usage I mentioned is on page 372 of the UofC edition of "The Dialogue" ... "... Copernicus himself says there is no such variation there; and they, arguing ad hominem, grant this to him."

Now here, the "tailoring" of the argument takes the form of accommodating the opponents premises, and in the following text Salviati remarks, "... I believe they argue against the man more in the defense of another man, more than any great desire to get at the truth."

So here the adjustment of the argument to accommodate an opponent is taken to mean that the argument is being made against that opponent, and I suppose the idea of ad hominem as an attack would arise from the idea of arguing directly against someone else, even though that is not the actual meaning of the term.