Another emotional response...or at least an apparent attempt at one.

Cal, take it easy. Calm down. It's affecting your ability to use your computer.

But based on just the subject line alone, you appear to be falling into another pseudoscientifc trap, the ad hominem attack. When you're unable to defend your position with facts and logic, you resort to name calling in an attempt to hide the fact that you have no facts. tsk tsk

Brian

ps....here's Micheal Shermers take on it, from "Why People Believe Weird Things":

Ad Hominem and Tu Quoque

Literally "to the man" and "you also," these fallacies redirect the focus from thinking about the idea to thinking about the person holding the idea. The goal of an ad hominem attack is to discredit the claimant in hopes that it will discredit the claim. Calling someone an atheist, a communist, a child abuser, or a neo-Nazi does not in any way disprove that person's statement. it might be helpful to know whether someone is of a particular religion or holds a particular ideology, in case this has in some way biased the research, but refuting claims bust be done directly, not indirectly. If Holocaust deniers, for example, are neo-Nazis or anti-Semites, this would certainly guide their choice of which historical events to emphasize or ignore. But if they are making the claim, for example, that Hitler did not have a master plan for the extermination of European Jewry, the response "Oh, he is saying that because he is a neo-Nazi" does not refute the argument. Whether Hitler had a master plan or not is a question that can be settled historically. Similarly for tu quoque. If someone accuses you of cheating on your taxes, the answer "Well, so do you" is no proof one way or the other.