I am well aware of the term and its significance. Namely, an attack on the person presenting an argument is a logical fallacy because it attacks the ethics/intelligence/character of the person, and is irrelevant to that person's reasoning.
If, therefore, you call someone "stupid" when attacking his points, you are no longer discussing the merits of his argument, but the quality of his mind.

So I guess I was right, and you don't quite get it.
I hate to break it to you but a personal attack does not guarantee that a logical fallacy has occurred. He's attacking/devaluing you based on your argument, he's not attacking/devaluing your arguments based on something about you. There is a difference.
No logical fallacy has occurred in his reply. He just basically called you stupid.
Here is an example of an ad hominem logical fallacy
"melichiz doesn't know about logical fallacies, therefore his positon on steam and securom are completely idiotic"

this thread has blow THE FUCK out of propotion.
lets just fucking move on.

Makes you wish we had some moderators, eh? Would be nice to see this finally locked and put out of its misery. Mind, that won't stop the discussion from resurfacing in the next thread which is unfortunate enough to make any passing reference to Steam.

Please prove that his attack was a result of the poster's (not mine, I was defending someone else, but of course, in your frustration you decide to call me stupid, which is fine, if such behavior suits you) comments, and not an attempt to argue against the poster's character rather than debate a point.
Bansama, replying to FlyByU, stated, "If you really believe that, you'd better stop playing games now and start making yourself a collection of tin foil hats." Notice that he never rebuts the argument. Instead, he says that FlyByU is crazy. Yes, he says that he is crazy because of his beliefs, as you assert. Sadly, that is still ad hominem. How so? The reasoning is circular. The attack on FlyByU's sense is not justified by any logical conclusion. Instead, he is simply crazy. In order to reach this conclusion, a flawed character is assumed, which means that Bansama's conclusion, that FlyByU is crazy, is also his premise.
It amuses me that you need call me stupid in order to make a point. Clearly, if your point was strong enough to question my intelligence, no additional insult would be necessary. Apparently, you must attack me to add force to your words.
Honestly, where can you expect this to go when people resort to personal attacks?
Some of us are merely defending ourselves from aggressive and rude members.

I even thought twice about making this thread and not just posting it in the "whatever you want to hate" thread.

for melichiz
[url=http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html]http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html[/url]

you're all retarded horseshit sucking dickwads, I hope you all realize this and stop posting in this stupid goddamn thread.
and if you think I'm serious, then I am serious.
but if you know I'm joking, then I'm obviously joking. :DDD

Asserting that I consider someone is crazy because they are predicting that we will soon have to pay $45 per week to play a game is jumping to a conclusion and missing it by miles. The notion is crazy yes, tin foil hat crazy. However, suggesting someone make a tin foil hat is not calling them crazy. The idea they proposed, like most conspiracies, is crazy. And that is all a tin foil hat reference is drawing attention to.
Then again, perhaps you're just out to cause friction within this "classy" community.
And for the record, my name starts with a lowercase B. The Bansama out there that uses an uppercase B is someone completely different, try not to get our identities confused.

well the link wasn't working for melichiz so I had to fix it for a moment

I'm going to link your fucking face!

Namely, I don't take kindly to dishonesty and pseudointellectual bullying.
Of course, defending myself from such internet tough-guys generally results in opportunistic pile-on responses (see "b"ansama's addition above your post) from those I have challenged in the past.
Speaking of which, bansama, didn't you say that you would be ignoring me? Is this the 3rd response to my comments since you claimed to be ignoring all future comments from me? Thanks for clarifying.
Also, Gyro, my point stands. Your link assumes that the conclusion is not also the premise. Unfortunately, an idiot like me could never comprehend formal logic.

Let me remind you of what I stated:
Right, I'll now return to ignoring your support of a service that doesn't care one bit about international customers.
Ie, I was done with listening to anything you stated about Impulse. Nowhere did I state I was done responding to you. The follow up reference to your "banter" was again, on the subject of Impulse. However, when you start to try to take someone's post and misinterpret it with the intention of causing friction, then naturally, you're going to get a response advising you to stop doing as such.

Relax. I said the example I used was a logical fallacy, so it shouldn't be taken seriously.
Tell you the truth I don't even know if your position is good or bad.I don't know much about securom.
Maybe I got the wrong idea about you at first, but t the "ahhh insults" comments seemed smug and condescending to me bu it's really not a big deal