Style of expression and ad hominem

You can define ad hominem one way or another, and it doesn't change the fact that in many cases you are unnecessarily referring to a person's body. Even if you conclude that someone is a pathetic brainwashed person because of the judgment of what they said, it's better to simply explain why you disagree with them without jumping into these personal descriptions that seem more like a nervous breakdown than a meaningful conclusion.

It's a matter of taste. I disagree with that, especially when it comes to someone who commits wrongdoing under the guise of intellectual secrecy. With regard to such a person or group, it is certainly important to clarify the conclusions that arise from the arguments.

I did not use such expressions about Yaron Yadan, even though I think he is quite wrong (and also quite right). He really did do serious research and work. But Isakov slanders the Talmud and all that is attached to it when it is clear that he does not know how to read a Talmudic issue and probably has never done so. The in-depth research of many years that he claims to have done is nothing more than a compilation of Yaron Yadan's writings. He is a liar and a charlatan, and it is definitely important to expose this and clarify it. And his audience, who boast of professorial titles and demonstrate the abilities of small children, and thus join in the slander at her age, is definitely also important to expose. What's more, it is an expression of a deeper phenomenon of the sciences of regret.

As stated above, it is clear to an outside observer that your emotional writing on the subject and your insistence on expressing yourself bluntly does not improve the quality of your arguments.

I will mention that I think the reason you used such expressions towards Isakov and not towards Yadan is because you spoke to the latter face to face and not to the former. You would not dare to insult another person in front of him like that (with all the claims about “it is important to disclose” etc.).

Listen, emotions are the last thing that is expressed in the rabbi's writing.

An observer from the side who is careful to insist and not read explanations will always remain in his position.

I will add an interesting point - the blunt style, to my impression, is expressed only on the blog, while in the debates and podcasts the opposite is true. The rabbi there behaves with considerable respect and patience towards his interlocutors (even when they are chattering). This does not make him any less sharp or convincing.
I would consider using the blunt style, if only so that your enlightening teachings will be accepted by as many people as possible and not give the wrong impression. Thank you for everything.