You said "IMHO ..." and then asserted something with no evidence. So the only germane information is the quality of your opinions. I made no assessment of those opinions, I simply listed what I found, based on your posts, and asked for confirmation. If merely listing these things constitutes an ad hominem attack, then it says more about your opinions than it does about me.

Let's be fair here.

"You said "IMHO ..." and then asserted something with no evidence."

Why would you expect something else when someone starts their post with IMHO?

> If merely listing these things constitutes an ad hominem attack, then it says more about your opinions than it does about me.

Your post had an obvious tone to it.

Tone, obvious or otherwise, does not constitute ad hominem either.

So these are not your opinions?

If your answer to the question was "no", you should say "no" and then clarify. It's not that hard.

I neither like misrepresenting other people's positions nor am I prone to doing it despite not liking it.

Have I misrepresented your positions?

If your answer was "no" then why not say that?

...not sure if you've mistaken me for someone else. I have no part in this discussion except making the procedural point.

Whoops. Sorry about that.

My point (addressed incorrectly) stands. It makes less sense for me to answer "no" than for the person I was responding to to answer "no". If I was making a "straw man" then in what way was it straw? If I was misrepresenting his/her opinions, how so? Otherwise, if more-or-less accurately summarizing a person's positions is ad hominem then what does that say of those positions?