You can define ad hominem this way or that way, but that doesn’t change the fact that in many cases you refer to the person unnecessarily. Even if you conclude that someone is a pitiful babbling fool because of your judgment of what he said, it would still be better simply to explain why you disagree with him instead of jumping to these personal descriptions, which look more like venting than a conclusion of any importance.

That is already a matter of taste. I disagree, especially when dealing with someone who commits wrongs under an intellectual guise. Regarding a person or group like that, it is definitely important to make clear the conclusions that arise from the arguments.

About Yaron Yadan, I did not use expressions like these, even though in my opinion he is wrong quite a bit (and also right quite a bit). He really did serious research and serious work. But Isakov slanders the Talmud and all who cleave to it, when it is evident that he does not know how to read a Talmudic passage and apparently has never done so. The deep research of many years that he claims to have done is nothing more than a compilation from the writings of Yaron Yadan. He is a liar and a charlatan, and it is definitely important to expose that and sharpen the point. And his audience, who flaunt professor titles while displaying the abilities of small children, and who then join gleefully in the slander—it is certainly important to expose that too. Especially since there this is an expression of a deeper phenomenon of bogus disciplines.

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

I’ll note that in my opinion, the reason you used such expressions toward Isakov and not toward Yadan is that with the latter you spoke face to face, and with the former you did not. You would not dare insult another person like that to his face (with all the claims about how it is “important to expose” and so on).

Listen, emotion is the very last thing that comes through in the Rabbi’s writing.

An outside observer who insists on digging in and not reading explanations will always remain in his position.

I’ll add an interesting point: in my impression, the blunt style shows up only on the blog, whereas in debates and podcasts the opposite is true. The Rabbi conducts himself there with evident respect and patience toward his conversation partners (even when they’re babbling nonsense). That does not make him any less sharp or persuasive.
I would reconsider the use of the blunt style, if only so that your illuminating teaching will be received by as many people as possible and will not create a mistaken impression. Thanks for everything.