It was not an ad hom attack. Saying someone is being dishonest is not an ad hom attack when you didn't even make any point. You made a single statement "These sources fail to prove that Twitter fact checking is wrong." without any exact points on any of the sources I provided. You gave a 1 line "not true" comment. An ad hom attack is when I am not "criticizing the points you are making" but you never really made any points except just say "fails to prove." That's like you writing a research paper filled with sources and your professor gives you a 0/100 with a one line response "fails to prove."

My comment literally states from a NYTimes article that stats agree with me:

> “votes cast by mail are less likely to be counted, more likely to be compromised & more likely to be contested than those cast in a voting booth, statistics show.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/us/politics/as-more-vote-...

This case from just last week had a 19% fraud:

> Close Results In Paterson Vote Plagued By Fraud Claims; Over 3K Ballots Seemingly Set Aside

> A county spokesman said 16,747 vote-by-mail ballots were received, but the county's official results page shows 13,557 votes were counted — with uncounted ballots representing 19 percent of all votes cast

> The spokesman later told the Paterson Press that the additional 2,390 disqualifications were due to the election board comparing signatures on the ballots to those previously on file for voters, and the new ones not matching up. The spokesman also would not explain the breakdown of what ward those ballots were from, or which candidates were voted for in those disqualified ballots. According to the Paterson Press, four wards had more votes go uncounted than the winner's margin of victory — meaning the uncounted ballots possibly could have tipped the election in favor of one of the candidates.

Unless you can actually counter my sources without crying victim of "ad hom" attack which I certainly didn't, my original statement stands true.