Wait, wut? My points were simply: 1. Contrary to Syne's assertion, and regardless of the factuality of the insult, an insult is not an ad hominem unless it's actually used in a certain way. 2. You're correct - an argument that is a fallacy is not neccessarily untrue, or for that matter, invalid. An argument that is a fallacy in one context might be perfectly valid in another context, that was the point of raising Mandy Rice-Davie's testimony in the Profumo affair, and that includes the examples I gave in this post. There are many contexts where writing off anything Syne has to say as the ramblings of a homophobic bigot might be perfectly valid. This can also be true for other fallacies as well. It's one of my pet peeves. Ad-hominem is a word that people like to bandy about without actually understanding what it means and it annoys me. Sweet as.