[VadeRetro]

Patrick, re your #1791, do you know the meaning of ad hominem? That is, it appears you would rather try to discredit posters than stay with the subject.

1791 is indeed a collection of ad hominems, by others on Patrick. Interesting that you would somehow fail to detect that.

[PatrickHenry]

I guess I'm back. Apparently my posting suspension was only for an hour or so. Strange experience. And very instructive.

[AndrewC]

1791 is indeed a collection of ad hominems, by others on Patrick. Interesting that you would somehow fail to detect that.

As you fail to note that his quotation of mine was an out of context quote.

My original

As if your posts are founts of relevant information instead of the refuse of Ad Hominem they are. You are giving bountiful evidence of your desiccated mind.

His quote

You [addressed to both PH and Junior, but anchored to a PH posting] are giving bountiful evidence of your desiccated mind.

My second statement was as a consequence of my first statement. Without the first, I would not have made the second.

[Phaedrus]

No failure of detection, Vade. I don't like ad homimens from any source and I won't defend them. Though sometimes sorely tempted, I really do try to avoid name calling. But Patrick's post was squarely on the ad hominem track, implying that the posters had nothing of substance to say that was relevant (by omission).