Did you read the remainder of my comment past the first sentence, or did you get distracted by the ad hominem? I admit that there is one, but it wasn&#x27;t actually presented as an argument. The rest of it refutes the central point of the claim at hand, namely geomark&#x27;s claim that people in this thread are violating DH0. They&#x27;re not, and in fact I go on to <i>agree</i> with pg&#x27;s framing of the hierarchy of disagreement in order for me to argue that the thread is at DH6.<p>If you think that anything I say is invalidated because I put ad hominems at the top of my comments, well, uh... I&#x27;m not sure how to explain this to you, but....<p>(Oh, and if you think this is about Twitter usage alone, I&#x27;d like to amend my personal attack to remove the words &quot;on Twitter&quot;, and then direct your attention at <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.idlewords.com&#x2F;2005&#x2F;04&#x2F;dabblers_and_blowhards.htm" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.idlewords.com&#x2F;2005&#x2F;04&#x2F;dabblers_and_blowhards.htm</a> .)