Nope. He argued that the judge was wrong, and then suggested that it was the judge's age that caused him to make an error.
What he didn't do is to use the judge's age in support of the first argument -- that would have been ad hominem.
What he didn't do is to use the judge's age in support of the first argument -- that would have been ad hominem.
he didnt: "[use] the judge's age in support of the first argument"
forgive me; perhaps you could clarify the difference?
Fact is having a second means to communicate (a .me or whatever address) doesn't mean speech isn't an issue here.
http://www.thedomains.com/2011/08/05/federal-court-rules-dom...
> My opponent is an idiot and believes X to be true, therefore X is false. (ad hominem)
and
> X is false. My opponent believes X to be true, therefore they are an idiot. (Not ad hominem.)