I don't think it's a stretch to characterize Dave Winer as a curmudgeon. He has made valuable contributions and I respect him, but he's still a curmudgeon.
I don’t think it’s a stretch to look at my comments here on HN and say that I’m cranky. Nevertheless, that doesn’t in any way add to a debate over my specific comment: Either I’m right or I’m wrong. If I’m wrong, say so and explain why. Saying (correctly) that I’m a cranky guy is still an Ad Hominem.
Summary: Ad Hominems can be factually correct yet they are still Ad Hominems and still the lowest form of disagreement.
And my point in this case isn’t that the entire argument was an Ad Hominem, but rather that it was a (possibly correct) Ad Hominem followed by a perfectly reasonable point. I stand by my assertion that the point is stronger on its own without the Ad Hominem.
Nevertheless, that doesn’t in any way add to a debate over my specific comment
This assumes that the OP's only goal was to debate. I opine that his secondary goal was to be a little cheeky and possibly evoke a chuckle, which was successfully achieved with me! You can interpret the "curmudgeon" comment as an ad hominem to the extent that his exclusive concern was the logical presentation of his argument, which I do not think is true for most cases in human discourse, on or off the internet.
I disagree. If someone responded face to face to a comment in a public debate by you by making a personal remark "wanting to be a little cheeky and evoke a chuckle", you would absolutely interpret it as being an attempt at ridiculing you and lowering the value of your opinion in the eyes of the audience, and you'd very likely be right. That is the essence of an ad hominem argument.
For what it's worth, I would (and have!) absolutely call someone out for being a curmudgeon face to face. I even called myself out on it the other day after trying to explain to a friend why I was turned off by Spotify.
Obligatory pedantic reply: the OP would be engaging in ad hominem if he argued that Dave Winer is wrong about real names on g+ because he's a curmudgeon. Instead, he argued that Dave Winer is wrong about real names on g+, and also he's a curmudgeon.
This is an incredibly silly claim that people who enjoy engaging in and supporting ad hominem always make when ad hominem is pointed out. Grandparent absolutely intends his insult, in proximity to his argument, to undermine his disputant's credibility. He doesn't need to literally say, "because he's a curmudgeon, his argument is wrong" for it to be ad hominem.
"Grandparent absolutely intends his insult, in proximity to his argument, to undermine his disputant's credibility."
I don't think that that is clear at all. In fact, his derision reads more like a thesis statement to me: "X is a curmudgeon. Why? Well, because of statements like Y."
The first thing the grandparent says is that Dave is a curmudgeon. It's absolutely an ad-hominem, more specifically it is the poisoning the well[1] variety. Everything read after the opening sentence is tainted with the idea that Dave's actions are that of a curmudgeon. Most ad-hominem's are accidental; they're so prevalent in internet discussions that it's difficult not to engage in it, so I'm sure the grandparent meant no harm. He had a genuinely good point, but I agree that it's somewhat ruined by the well poisoning.
My claim is pedantic, but it's not silly. I'm not a fan of either ad hominem or garden-variety insults, as I hope my comment history will demonstrate, but I do think it's worth drawing the distinction on principle.
