On: Allegations of past and present Internet crime hau...

[chubot]

Haha, funny. But in this case it is the refutation of the argument that has the fallacy.

So there is the original argument that he's a spammer, which hasn't been refuted. And there is the ad hominem counter-argument which is refuted by being ad hominem.

So I think I am still justified in believing the original argument without contrary evidence. So really you are profering a fallacist's fallacist's fallacy. :)

[paisawalla → chubot]

So there is the original argument that he's a spammer, which hasn't been refuted.

Are you aware that the burden of proof rests on the claimant? Unless you have convincing evidence supporting a claim, you are not logically justified in accepting it.