Honest Debate: how do you read?

I thought I'd just mention incidents i've encountered in a recent thread to highlight a couple points not covered in the list which make the listed issues seem pretty minor. Both were initiated by the same poster.- Ad Hominem attacks (another poster was described as a form of (Message 82)feces-inhabiting vermin for pointing out the invalidity of yet another ad-hominem attack)- Claiming to have linkable specific evidence but giving the run-around when asked to actually cite the source (not sure if there's a specific name for this other than talking-out-yer-ass). When I found a source (no help from the poster), it pretty much contradicted the nature of the claim being made.Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given.

Thanks, noted. It's more about self-awareness about our own biases, and ensuring we treat others in an ethical way in debates. Hmmm well, looking at my own record, is ridiculing a personalized attack itself an unjustifiable personalized attack ?Would you see the specific forms of the fallacies, as symptoms, and the glossary in the first post here as the underlying causes or diagnosis ? I now notice that my second complaint could be characterised by misrepresentation combined with an appeal to authority (appealing to the authority of an inaccessible/unknowable source).(BTW i am about to jump on a train and where I am heading I do not have internet access, so thx everyone for enlivening my holiday period! just letting you know I may not be able to respond! )