drunkle: I could argue that gold’s post wasn’t ad hominem, but I would be wrong, and we both know it. However, parts of it were not, and correctly made the point that Wolf, like Kunstler, or Chomsky, is a hack. That is not ad hominem, and is fully supported by facts.

This discussion between you and I (on this thread and the other) underscores an unfortunate point: We get caught up in parsing words, or arguing certain portions of a posting, that we lose the overall tenor of the argument and start bandying semantics.