String indeed. Your post was a list of personal attacks on DiLorenzo and those who read him. What it failed to do is address any matter of substance whatsoever as it relates to the article.
I don't actually think either of those statements qualifies as ad hominem
Let's see then...
"Attacking the Person (argumentum ad hominem)
Definition:
The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example,the person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps. There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
1. ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
2. ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
3. ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practise what he preaches."
Now, back to what you said.
"He is trying to make a career out of attacking Lincoln. Beats attacking someone who can fight back, I suppose."
That certainly appears as if you are making an attack upon DiLorenzo's character by assigning a negative motive to him personally and attacking that alleged motive. That's one ad hominem.
"His single-minded Lincoln obsession is absolutely hysterically funny."
...which certainly appears to be an attack upon DiLorenzo the person in absence of a response to the arguments he made in his article. That makes two.
"Anyone who can be duped by DiLOrenzo is just a dupe anyway."
...and that is indisputably a personal attack upon all who favorably respond to DiLorenzo's writings, giving us our third ad hominem. So yes, you did indeed engage in ad hominems.
And even if they do, they are hardly a string. A "string of ad hominems" could properly be defines as a succession of consecutive ad hominems in the plural sense of two or more. Your post contained three in succession, thereby making it a string.
So back off on that one.
Considering that I have been able to make my case and stand by my previous assertion within all reasonable considerations and documentation I see no need to back off from anything.
And by the way, can DiLorenzo go two paragraphs without mentioning Lincoln? I don't think he could write a recipe for cornbread without mentioning old Ape Lincom.
...which takes us to #4 and #5 while simultaneously indicating that the previously referenced string of ad hominems is by no means a closed one.
As for substantive discussion, I said very plainly in my post that I don't see any point in it, and I gave my reason why. It's pointless. Get it?
If in that you mean to convey that your reasons were stated in your previous post I need only note that, being ad hominem arguments, they were accordingly fallacious as reasons. If in that you mean to convey that an attribute of pointlessness serves as your reason for determining that there is no "point in it," namely the act of a substantive response to Dilorenzo's argument, I need only note that your conclusion is a circular one in which not only does the conclusion depend upon the premise but also the premise upon the conclusion, thereby rendering it void on a problematic self-contingency.
He-heeeey, you did get it! Well, you move to the head of the class! Way to go! Right on! Woo-hoo!
That certainly appears as if you ...
or words to that effect, what followed was dead wrong. Absolutely incorrect. The fact is, DiLorenzo talks of nothing but Lincoln. All I did was acknowledge that simple fact. It's not ad hominem. You're wrong to think it is. Incorrect.