After having posted responses in several Philosophy of Photography forums, I have noticed a rather uncomfortable pattern that raises its ugly head too often. Comments are made that do not address the issue at hand, per se. Rather, they involve quasi-personal, sometimes fully personal, attacks. Most recently, in a thread pertaining to extrinsic and intrinsic qualities of photographs, one participant made a comment about Jean-Paul Sartre's alleged narcissism. Logicians traditionally have referred to the use of such strategies in the context of argument as argumentum ad hominem - argument against the man. Example: "Barack Obama's middle name is 'Hussein'. He has ties to Islam. Therefore, his proposed middle east policies should not be taken seriously." Clearly, it does take a great deal of logical acumen to see through this argument. The conclusion does not, by any means, follow from its premises. The premises are totally irrelevant. If a person's points of view were evaluated based on his/her behavioral idiosyncracies or even lapses in morality, it is unlikely we ever would witness any intellectual progress. My best example has to do with attending a colloquim given by Saul Kripke at the invitation of the University of Miami philosopy department (about 35 years ago). Professor Kripke walked to the podium with his shirt half out of his pants. He must have had a cold, and he wiped his nose on his shirt sleeve. When he spoke, he made no eye contact with the attendees, and his delivery was halting and, occasionally, barely audible. The bottom line is that his appearance and behavior were odd, and his delivery was awful. However, none of that had any relevance to the arguments he offered. And, IMHO, Professor Kripke is responsible for incredibly significant developments in symbolic logic, philosopy of language, and philosopy of mind. I suspect that the forum discussions would be far more valuable to all concerned if the comments posted would stay on task. Thanks for hearing me out.