So, it seems you have little understanding of tu quoque arguments.
The problem here is that I never engaged in an ad hominem attack. My observation was that many people here are defending the telco line of reasoning even while discussing it in the comments to an article showing that the telco line about why rates are so high is a lie admitted to by a telco lobbyist. Do you see the irony there? Telco lobbyist says data caps are not about network congestion and commenters arguing why it IS about network congestion… I think that’s really really funny.
Thus the kool-aid comment.
You, for some reason, think that is an ad hominum attack. However, I never presented an argument based on an irrelevant fact about anyone. My argument was that people are still arguing for a point that was originally a lie presented by the telcos which they have now admitted was a lie.
So, for you to come and state an irrelevant argument i.e the intimation that I was engaging in ad-hominem argument is, in and of itself, an actual ad-hominem attack since your point had no relevance to the discussion at hand and was only an attack. Thus, I say to you
Tu quoque.
