There was no ad hominem in the parent post.
You seem not to have read it very closely.
And do you think that one person acting childishly gives you the right to respond in kind?
I thought there was no ad hominem in the parent post. So there was after all?
If you want to sway people to your point of view, then you need to present your facts without all of the insults and the snide "in case you missed it" remarks.
Who's trying to convince somebody? What's my point of view? Facts are facts, regardless of presentation. The X protocol has a certain definition. There is no convincing needed unless people simply do not desire to listen to the facts; and if that is the case, I need not bother replying, since those type of people will believe whatever they want in any case.

The phrase "In case you missed it" refers to the case in which the person who replied had neglected to read the context of said post (including its parent) before replying. Since the replier demonstrated either 1) being incredibly obtuse, or 2) not having read the parent post, I chose to defer to the latter possibility in kindness.

People are confused by the problems arising from the multiple meanings of "server." I think it's ultimately a semantic problem.
Quite possible, but it's ridiculous how many people sit around and say that X Window is a stupid system, because they either didn't bother to take the time to understand it, or refused to understand it only because they felt it was too complex.

If people are going to debate its technical merits, fine, but claiming that "X designers should obviously have done this and that instead" without even knowing the history and background behind such decisions is simply naive.