Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.

Does any of the above seem to bear semblance to esquared's invective to anyone other than myself?
I just had to face down four (4) jerks in a traffic situation in N. Salt Lake City, UT. I squared off with them armed with nothing more than a rubber mallet in front of a few hundred witnesses, including my wife of 30 years rather than suffer their abuse anymore. The fools thought that just because I am somewhat older (I am 62)that I was not going to stand up to them. The snot-noses ranged from the mid-teens to the
early twenties. Two were wearing head rags and tried to play junior-wannabe-gangbanger. If I had been in a more isolated situation, I would have much preferred a handgun to the rubber mallet as the driver kept reaching for the console lid where I could see he had a 380 caliber automatic. I told him in no uncertain terms that that action would get his face caved in by 40 ounces of hard rubber. I was fortunate enough to face them to where they had to consider what video or camera phone record(s) might be made. When they were by the Utah State Police a few miles down the road it was discovered that the gun was stolen, had been used in a gang related shooting, and of course none of them had a permit. THEY were the cowards esquared, and your lack of ability to make a cogent point without use of ad hominem attacks is noted and is pathetic. Now, call me a coward.