So what response is posible to an ad hom sent to me would your rules allow. Again without a specific example, another pointless post.

RGoss99 said:

In theory, I agree, but without a specific example your point is not made and can not be responded to.

Okay, here is the specific example, in this discussion.

You typed this:

I have npproblem with this as facebk inot a public service itis  rivate busnessIf its polices egarding free speech permit some to sprea propagada that is bad for buines,there moral obligation to thei positive ceents, no to mention good busness ustifies their action

The red lines beneath this paragraph are everywhere!

I responded:

Good God man! How many buttons are you missing on your keyboard?

Were you typing with mittens??!!

That was absolutely atrocious!!

And you call yourself an educator!!

This was meant to be jovial teasing, but this is where the very first G=G+1 appeared.

What should have been owned (that spelling was the worst) and shrugged off (not the end of the world, learn to laugh at yourself) became an issue. 

And the whole G=G+1 confusion began.

RGoss99 said:

So what response is posible to an ad hom sent to me would your rules allow. Again without a specific example, another pointless post.

There is a specific example.  You just have to follow this chain of posts back to Czoe.

Czoe's style of writing is very intelligent and sharp witted.  She also loves to play with her words.

She did not deserve to be called a passive aggressive coward.

You overstepped your own rule and replied with direct insult on character, when she made none against yours - but rather her displeasure at the scoring system this macro seems to have invented.

But even if she did call you a name - any name - that is irrelevant, as your own personal system refuses to engage with ad homs.

Therefore, you should not be using them yourself.

I have no problem with jovial teasing, as long as it is related to the content of my post or the thread title. Note that your example still made no reference to the thread title or my response to it. The fact is that, while accepting the problem there are two solutions. 1. if my "errors" cause you to miss the message, and yu care, why not ask for a correction so you will understand the message. 2. the other is not an excuse, but one must realize that I am using two keyboards, one for my real work, the other for social media, and shifting between them I often land on the wrong positions, added to the fact that my concentration is on the other computer, and seldom see what appears on my CRT. So thinks for explaining your position but it does nothing to justify your objection to a specific "G" post to which you find objectionable.

Using the term "passive-aggressive" is not an ad hom, because I am referring to specific behavior that changes the topic of the thread, a request, or a way of avoiding the message of my post. This is not personal because it refers not to the person but to specific behavior that that person chooses to use. To be an ad hom there must be a logical disconnect between the term as used and the person using it. 

To be passive-aggressive one must be unjustifiable offensive. If one objects to what I call passive-aggressive with a "G" this is nota negative, just an opportunity for that person to justify what I consider a post that is a waste of time and cyber space.

While on the subject, I´ll go back and find your missig example as to why you feel this was unjustified.

... without a reference I didn´t find the example to which you referred. BTW in terms of physiology, there is always the chance that what you might call "jovial teasing" is just a passive-aggressive way of showing hostility and other improper behavior. the majority of humor unless the speaker is the victim, carries with it a victim and a message, that is not usually positive

You conveniently omitted the part where you justified calling her a coward.

Now I'm passive aggressive, too?

I actually get accused of that a lot.

It seems that people would prefer I outright insult them instead of being diplomatic in my replies.

OK Goss. 

I will be blunt.

Stop insulting people on my forum.  It's a rule.

Grammar problema, I did not call her a coward, that charge would require an indicitave sentence, I used a subjunctive, as indicated by the Word "if" and the question "Why be a coward". This describes her not as a  coward, but her action as interpretedly as "cowardly", e.g. not an ad hom. Note you have not provided a sample of my post where I said she was a coward.

In this context, yes, your being diplomatic is passive aggressive because the language used while giving an implication leaves you free of the responsibility of your intent.