You wouldn't know an ad hominem if it bit you on the ass.
You're stupid, because you compare the existence of a person for whom no contemporary source exists, versus on where a great many contemporary sources do.
So, yes, it would appear that you really are that stupid. Which, incidentally, is not an ad hominem - it's an inescapable conclusion one reaches when reading your arguments.
As I have better things to do at the moment, I'll leave the arguments to my counterparts here, and resume the regularly scheduled mocking you so richly deserve.
You're stupid, because you compare the existence of a person for whom no contemporary source exists, versus on where a great many contemporary sources do.
So, yes, it would appear that you really are that stupid. Which, incidentally, is not an ad hominem - it's an inescapable conclusion one reaches when reading your arguments.
As I have better things to do at the moment, I'll leave the arguments to my counterparts here, and resume the regularly scheduled mocking you so richly deserve.