> "I, Dave Winer, will draw from my own personal experience, including my interaction with one of the participants of this deal, to speak with authority on this".

I honestly don't understand the problem with that. He has experience, with this type of situation, and with the people involved, and he's using that to back up the more general point (which you agreed with). Why is he not entitled to some authority here?

It just seems like a lot of the commenters have much more of a grudge against Dave Winer the person (I don't follow him that closely) than the actual content of his argument.

There is nothing at all wrong with using your own experience and perspective (that's what we all generally do). Similarly, people have every right to then talk about your experience and perspective.

Winer has fielded a number of seemingly bitter and aggrieved posts lately (about ageism, not getting his due rewards, etc) and it is impossible to read newer entries without that cloud however over them..

Such as his name?

No, that he is whining. He isn't being questioned because of his name; he is being questioned because he is whining. The quip about his name is not an ad hominem because the quip is immaterial to the argument.

There is no "you should question this because his name is Foo", rather "you should question this because he is acting Fooish, which incidentally sounds similar to his name."

Immature, but not an ad hominem.

> The quip about his name is not an ad hominem because the quip is immaterial to the argument.

That's backwards: ad hominem attacks are considered bad precisely because they're not relevant to the argument. Note that the GP's argument is exactly the opposite: that the attacks aren't ad hominem because they are material in this case.

If you're saying that the original line wasn't meant as support of their argument and therefore doesn't qualify for examination for materiality, I'm finding that hard to swallow too, e.g. "You're wrong, and also incidentally--totally as aside, seriously--you're an idiot."

An insult that is not being used in a logical argument is not an ad hominem, or a logical fallacy of any sort. It is just an insult. This is what I mean by the admittedly poorly stated "immaterial to the argument".

If I say "You are a doo-doo head, and you are wrong because of X, Y, and Z", then (assuming X, Y, and Z are sound of course) I have not committed a logical fallacy (though I have immaturely insulted you). The insult was not a part of the argument presented. If I say "You are a doo-doo, and therefore wrong.", then I am guilty of fallacious reasoning.

Things don't have to be fallacies for them to be out of line. We can criticize "You're wrong, and also incidentally--totally as aside, seriously--you're an idiot." without mislabeling it as fallacious.

Calling him a "whiner", in any form with no substance to back it up is indeed arguing the man, not the substance of his argument. It's also mean, petty, immature, unpleasant to read and I would and have strongly chastised my three and five year old children for this sort of speech and behaviour.

Honey, I think you're whining. Just sayin.

Dude, don't engage. You don't need to.