nonoise wrote:

You are correct, in the sense that an "ad hominem" attack is against a
person instead of his/her argument: it's a logical fallacy, and should
be avoided for that reason. However, as you point out, another poster
had already refuted the claim: I though it obvious that no further
evidence was needed.

Someone who asserts that the moon is made of green cheese, or that the
earth is flat, or that magnets affect gasoline - or that Africans are
inferior - should be answered with skepticism. Even the most wild
speculation can attain the status of "fact" when enough people believe
it: my father was fond of saying "A million Frenchmen can't be wrong",
and Joseph McCarthy proved that Americans are never short on
gullibility, so I remain convinced that an appeal to preconceived
notions, either of racial purity or oil company conspiracies, deserves,
if not derision, at least to be received with an extra measure of caution.

In other words, the burden of proof is on the claimant: if someone
believes that magnets can improve gasoline mileage, let him step up and
demonstrate it. If he can't, let him take his lumps.

I'm sorry to crabwalk here, but I believe my concerns are real, and I
have seen otherwise "normal" people hire "Feng shui" "practitioners" to
place magnets in their work cubicle (so as to assure that the stars were
in alignment or the worm had turned or the entrails were favorable, or
whatever it is that convinces "normal" people to open their wallets).
The one constant of the human race is that David Hannum _was_ right:
"There's a sucker born every minute".

Our history has shown that a million suckers _can_ be wrong, but it also
demonstrates, as Galileo would attest, that they can be very vicious
when confronted with the newest version of the truth. I know I make your
argument for you here, but with a point in mind: those with outlandish
ideas had best be ready for a lot of hard stares and possess a lot of
hard facts.

William
P.S. Suggestions as to a more appropriate forum are, of course, welcome.

At the risk of repetition and belaboring the obvious, there isn't
anything at all in your response with which I disagree. "An extra
measure of caution"..."answered with skepticism": exactly.

sci.skeptic is one place that someone who is genuinely curious about an
improbable claim
might find help. It is no place for those who believe regardless of the
lack of evidence.