[Huck]

Waaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiit. Hold the phone. I see where you are getting confused. The definition of ad hominem you posted begins with "instead of attacking an assertion." See, that's where you are getting it wrong. I wasn't pointing out DiLorenzo's Lincoln fetish instead of attacking his, ahem, "assertions". I thought I had made it clear that I don't believe his, ahem, "assertions" merit a rebuttal. There is no point. Get it? I think you still don't. I was simply pointing out that DiLorenzo, not Rockwell, wrote the article. See, you thought there should be some sort of debate of facts or something. I'd sooner debate the flatness of the earth.

[GOPcapitalist]

The definition of ad hominem you posted begins with "instead of attacking an assertion." See, that's where you are getting it wrong.

In light of the complete absence of any substantive commentary on DiLorenzo's article in your post, exactly what, other than an assault upon his person in their place, is one to construe of your attacks of DiLorenzo? Your actions were ad hominem by definition and no ammount of ex post facto equivocation will ever change that.

I thought I had made it clear that I don't believe his, ahem, "assertions" merit a rebuttal.

And that is precisely the problem with your argument. You originally premised your conclusion that they do not merit a rebuttal upon your attacks against DiLorenzo's person. Now, in turn, you are premising your attacks upon DiLorenzo's person on the conclusion that his arguments do not merit rebuttal. In short, your argument is wholly circular and contained within that circle is a definite string of ad hominems.