When allegations are as unsubstantiated as Hitchens', it is difficult to refute the assertions; you cannot refute a proof that has not been offered. Instead, the only support for the claim is the reputation of the person making it. In such a case, pointing out the extreme prejudice of the accuser is not mere ad-hominem; it is refuting the only evidence provided.
I hardly would call people registering their offense "hating." I'll give you that there was one absurdly silly comment about a metaphorical sandwhich. Besides that one comment, the strongest comment made against the person who posted this slander is "You have serious problems and obviously don't understand what you are talking about." That's hardly "hate."
I disagree with Hitchen's anti-religious views but
simply asserted that he is an independent thinker who
writes with great wit and irony - and usually can support
his assertions, at least to his own satisfaction. Relative
to my remark about vituperative ad homnem attacks, I was
only commenting on what I SAW in some postings:
(1) "yours is a pitiful and hateful little mind"
(2) "...your ignorance and spite."
(3) "Have you been drinking?"
(4) " your post is a big hunk of idiot meat"
I could go on but you get the picture. If this isn't
ad hominem and vituperative, I'll have to check the
dictionary. I'm just saying this sort of personal,
insulting attack is not a substitute for rational
argumentation. And we only belittle ourselves - not
others - when we so speak.