That's 17 out of 17, plus at least another dozen.Out of 30 or so articles, maybe 2 or 3 don't deal with Lincoln. That ratio of Lincoln to non-Lincoln articles is irrefutable evidence that my original post, which you hilariously mislabeled as ad hominem, was dead on accurate. That's not even debatable. 17 out of 17. What's that? Coincidence? By the way, did you know Lincoln invented ad hominem? Yeah, well, he didn't actually invent it. He discovered it while secretly studying Karl Marx, then he introduced it to America. I read that on lewrockwell.com. Guess who wrote the piece?
LOL! LOL!!!! I am just thinking about you trying to argue that DiLorenzo isn't Lincoln-obsessed. Man, that's funny. Thanks for the laugh. I stand by my original post, which is irrefutably true.
Too bad for your case that your realm of "evidence" willfully excludes counterevidence that contradicts your original claim. By that I am refering to the 10 full length books he has written, of which only one pertains to Lincoln.
which you hilariously mislabeled as ad hominem
There is no vice in calling something what it is, and as I have proven beyond a reasonable doubt by way of definition, your original post was a poorly constructed ad hominem. I'm truly sorry if you don't like being called on your fallacies but in that you have only yourself to blame. If you desire to avoid it in the future, don't shoot your mouth off.