":Dear Federico, when I have the time, and I promise I'll make the time, I'll delete any true ad hominem remarks (""dense"" would be a good example). Not only do they not belong on wikipedia, but as a student of logic, it is a classic logical fallacy to use an ad hominem remark to form an argument. But as I said, I feel passionately about the subject, and it has brought out the worst in me.

However, certain comments I will not remove. A claim of hypocrisy is not an ad hominem remark, it's a statement that one's views are contradictory, that proposes one standard for one case, and another standard for another. As such hypocrisy is not an ad hominem remark, rather it is used to describe inconsistent statements or behaviour.

For example, you mention that ""You have to show me where the statistics of historians’ opinions about Hiroshima and Nagasaki decision is. Does it include Soviet historians, Japanese historians, Chinese historians, South American historians, East and West European historians, Africans historians, Arab, Indian historians? Or only include U.S. Army historians? Even in that case, opinion of the majority is still OPINION, not fact."" Fair enough, but later on you say ""it's been stated many times that the Americans were only thinking of saving American lives through the A-Bomb. The Japanese never came into it. They did not care at all about Japanese lives, so your reasoning is invalid."" Who said this? You impose such high criteria for my statement that the A-Bomb saved human lives, requiring experts from all over the world, but soon after you baldly assert that my reasoning is invalid because ""it's been stated many times..."" Stated many times by who? According to your very own criteria, you need to provide evidence from Soviet historians, Japanese historians, Chinese historians, South American historians, East and West European historians, Africans historians, Arab and Indian historians. But you don't. You merely state ""it's been stated many times...therefore my reasoning is invalid."" Apparently Loomis has to provide sources, but we can take Federico's word for it whatever he says. That, my dear friend, is hypocrisy. And you, my dear friend, are a hypocrite for reasoning in such a way. Calling you a hypocrite is therefore not an ad hominem remark and I therefore will not remove it.

And by the way, thank you for pointing out my typo when I put a K in the word ""recognize"". Again, it seems that when Loomis makes the slightest spelling typo, its fair game to point it out, but when Federico makes numerous spelling, grammar, syntactical etc... mistakes, its impolite to recognize and show sensitivity towards the fact that English is not Federico's first language.

I have more to say but unfortunately I have an appointment. Hopefully I'll get back in time to finish this before you read it. In the mean time, I truly mean it when I say that I consider myself a soft-spoken, agreeable person. Isn't all this mea culpa proof on anything? Speak to you later and all the best.    

"