What is Reddit's opinion of Informal Logical Fallacies: A Brief Guide?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

Well OP, oops I mean "sadandexchausted" maybe just pay attention to your conclusion, oops I mean OP's conclusion. Good points don't entail a conclusion. That's not how basic logic works. You're missing the forest for the trees. And I recommend a book in basic logic, perhaps this one: Informal Logic Fallacies

Thank you for your response.

> There's no issue. People who refuse to argue the substance of a discussion

This is you. Ad Hominems have no substance.

> You refuse to make any points about pjtv and its connections to the GOP, your source is bullshit and you've made zero attempt to even engage the subject.

I will let the fair minded audience decide who has been logical in this debate. And I have already responded to your accusation, and I will go further:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Circumstantial

> Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).[7]

therefore, the substance of your argument is an Ad Hominem.

Again; I think the reason why you are having so much trouble in this debate is that you appear to be very ill-versed in informal logic. Given your obvious passion for political discourse, I think you would benefit if you studied the topic, to help you form better arguments. For example, you may be interested in picking up this book here:

http://www.amazon.com/Informal-Logical-Fallacies-Brief-Guide/dp/0761854339

What do you think?

Assuming for a moment I do have lots of time and not enough friends... what does that have to do with anything I've said? Does it make anything less true? Maybe you should read a book. :P