I googled "argumentum ad hominem" and came up with a few hits. For the sake of brevety, I'll post the short definition.

Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.

If anyone cares to read the full definition, I copied this from here:

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html

There are other sites that say about the same thing. Just how does this definition pertain to what I was saying? I never said Robert-I's argument lacked credence because he has a nose that looks like a pickle. (I'm not saying he does, just using an example) I wasn't attacking his character at all. I was merely pointing out that anyone with a vested interest in a certain point of view is sometimes more likely to see things that way than one who has no vested interest. Blackstone, at the risk of being accused of using an argumentum ad hominem, it seems to me that you have a lot of book knowledge and are well versed in debate, but have very little common sense. This isn't meant as an attack, just an observation. You obviously have a lot more knowledge about some things than I. But your reference to this "argumentum ad hominem" has no relevance to what I was saying. I can't believe that you can't or won't see that anyone, ANYONE, (you, me, the guy down the street) can be swayed in how they see and interpret things by their wants and desires, whether consciously or unconsciously. It has nothing to do with character. It has to do with human nature.

Dakota