The ad hominem was in accusing me of someone trying to dig themselves out a hole, when really, that's just you for having said something silly, acting arrogant on top of that and blaming the community, while continuing to deny a well established convention because you can't accept being wrong. It's the only reason you're still replying.
It's fabricated until you provide a credible source. Even if you provide a source, my criticism of your statistic would still not be "ad hominem".
> The ad hominem was in accusing me of someone trying to dig themselves out a hole
That was never my argument, you pivoted the conversation to my motives, and I told you that I enjoyed watching people try to dig themselves out of holes.
> because you can't accept being wrong. It's the only reason you're still replying.
More ad hominem. It seems to be all you have. :)
Heh. I've never seen someone so stubbornly dig their heels in to avoid being wrong to such an extent, well not for a year ot two at least.
> More ad hominem. It seems to be all you have. :)
I don't think you understand what an ad hominem actually is.
But, sure, keep it up. Keep insisting most accounts with throwaway in the name are not by and far actually throwaway accounts, because that's just so gosh darn reasonable. Heh.