Some wound with friendly-fire those standing in our defense

Here's an exchange (containing minor formatting changes and names redacted) with someone who, while not necessarily intending to advance Allah's War Against Humanity, does wound with friendly-fire those standing in the way of Islamic supremacism and tyranny.  Since the sniping is intentional, it seems necessary to give one with decent aim but poor judgment a rap on the beezer:

"Thanks a lot for forwarding Kyle-Anne Shiver’s piece. What an old fashioned laff riot. I visited her blog but was unable to find out much about her other than how she acquired her name; that fact that she converted to Catholicism; and that she has big hair."

You can't refute the author's statements of fact nor the conclusions drawn from them, so you attack her (and [an American Patriot]).

Argumentum ad hominem. The last refuge of cowards and tyrants.

By the way, my pointing out your lack of intellectual integrity does not constitute an endorsement of the author's solution to the Lesser Jihad (Islam's war against Israel). I'm responding only to what was shared here [in this e-mail exchange].

To which this gentleman responded:

Dear Mr. Matamoros,

If you wish to throw the gauntlet; if you, personally, have anything worth reading to write, I will respond. Kyle-Anne Shiver’s comment was intellectual garbage. It is your right to hate the President if you so desire. But do not for one nanosecond think that any of the crap to which you people subscribe is worth the time to parse and dissect.

[an American Patriot] sends post after post of untruths and empty calories from the blogosphere. You lap them up and accuse me of ad hominem, or in this instance, ad feminem attacks.

What we all need is fewer blogs and more content. Kyle-Anne Shiver’s description of herself is so lacking in content that if you fail to appreciate that, it says volumes about you, just as it said nothing about her.

Look at your last comment. If I were you, I would have the intellectual honesty to be embarrassed. But that’s your problem and [an American Patriot]’s problem. It doesn’t matter what you think; what you say; or what you do. You lack utterly the self awareness to be embarrassed.

So, bring it on if you wish . . . .

And my last step in this dance:

I'd prefer a civil discussion/debate.

Gauntlet-throwing is so Medieval, which I appreciate. But that's not what you want.  Rather than offer something substantive, you want to call names, demonize, and stifle dissent.  I'll play along . . .

I wrote: "You can't refute the author's statements of fact nor the conclusions drawn from them, so you attack her (and [an American Patriot])."  And you respond with . . . more argumentum ad hominem.  Thanks for proving my point.  (Speaking of "an utter lack of self-awareness" . . . .)

if you, personally, have anything worth reading to write

You wouldn't know, since you don't actually read what I write.

I'll respond

With more ad hominems and name-calling, no doubt.

It is your right to hate the President if you so desire.

. . . I'd vote for Obama in 2012 if he would tell the truth and act in defense of America and against totalitarianism, rather than bankrupting and disarming the nation, betraying our friends, and aiding Communist and Muslim tyrants.

But do not for one nanosecond think that any of the crap to which you people subscribe is worth the time to parse and dissect.

"You people"? What are you, racist?* [. . .]

[an American Patriot] sends post after post of untruths and empty calories from the blogosphere. You lap them up and accuse me of ad hominem, or in this instance, ad feminem attacks.

"hominem." [an American Patriot] is a man.  Besides that, he's an honest and passionate defender of American Liberty.  Both facts go a long way toward explaining why you hate him.

What we all need is fewer blogs and more content.

'blogs are a free man's modern Gutenberg press.  But that's your problem, isn't it?  You don't want individuals exercising their God-given, unalienable right to speak their minds. You'd rather silence them.

You're a tyrant.

Kyle-Anne Shiver’s description of herself is so lacking in content

Which goes to show (again) that you don't actually read, for if you did, you'd have seen that unlike you, I did not go scrounging around her site looking for fodder for personal attacks, I responded to the actual content in the earlier e-mail.

Regarding that, you have yet to point out any error. The only (possibly-) valid criticism of that article is her citation of the "siding with Muslims" quote -- "valid" only if you believe the claim that Obama was speaking of defending innocent people against unwarranted persecution, not of protecting the ummah against non-Muslims defending themselves against jihad.

that if you fail to appreciate that, it says volumes about you, just as it said nothing about her.

More of the Accidental Irony of the Dishonest.

Look at your last comment.

Why are you offended? Are you a leftist, a Muslim, or a cannibal?

If I were you, I would have the intellectual honesty to be embarrassed.

That's a certain text!  If you were me, at least you'd have some intellectual integrity, even if it were only enough to be embarrassed.

But that’s your problem and [an American Patriot]’s problem.

More ad hominem . . . .

It doesn’t matter what you think

Yes, you wouldn't want to let facts get in your way.

So, bring it on if you wish.

How very "W" of you . . . .

(Now you're googling frantically "Amillennialist" and "Santiago Matamoros" in order to find something over which you can call me names.)

* I know that was a low blow. I'm almost ashamed. But when someone is intentionally and repeatedly rude to a good man working in defense of Liberty, a good shot to the central nervous system seems apropos.