Changes

Two problems - assertion no.1, is a debate which should be had somewhere else entirely.

Two problems - assertion no.1, is a debate which should be had somewhere else entirely.

- It doesn't make the use of ad homs any better. In fact, the whole argument's flawed: X, who possesses characteristic A, is a member of Y. Z is also a member of Y. By your reasoning, and by the reasoning of ad hominem users, Z also possesses characteristic A.  Aristotle turns in his grave. This is an area already well covered in the article. --<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Wik</font><font color="#444444" face="Times New Roman">i</font><font color="#666666" face="Times New Roman">nterpreter</font>'''^{[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]}

- It doesn't make the use of ad homs any better. In fact, the whole argument's flawed: X, who possesses characteristic A, is a member of Y. Z is also a member of Y. By your reasoning, and by the reasoning of ad hominem users, Z also possesses characteristic A.  Aristotle turns in his grave. This is an area already well covered in the article. --<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Wik</font><font color="#444444" face="Times New Roman">i</font><font color="#666666" face="Times New Roman">nterpreter</font>'''^{[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]}