The joys of the internet, always two opposing sides to everything. However, stating an opposing claim by doing a character assassination on the authors before you get around to their points isn't a good tactic IMO. It's ad hominem at its worst and that's the reason it's now no longer acceptable in the forums, it kills debate and detracts from the main issues. It's very common online, but not a tactic I find convincing. You ought to be able to refute someone's argument without resorting to that. If you can't, then your credibility goes down a long way in my estimation.
In the comments below the article, - which are well worth reading - that's the first thing Doutré has picked up on, "Predictably, sociologist Scott Hamilton has evaded the real issues raised in the E-Local Magazine series of articles and has opted instead to “shoot the messengers”. His emotive, vitriolic diatribe homes in on me personally and he tries to convince the public that I’m nothing but a conspiracy nut working in cahoots with people he deems to be social misfits, Nazis or “unapproved” historians worthy of contempt … whatever-whoever."
In short, Sunny, don't accept anything at face value. Be objective and if someone's first argument is that their opponent is a an 'undesirable' member of society therefore should be discredited because of that, rather than their argument being about the points the other person has raised, ask yourself why they need to do that.
'Don't listen to him because he is a...' is a lot different to 'Don't listen to him because he's wrong on these counts...
Something is not right. This message is just to keep things from messing up down the road