> Ad-Hominem attacks are the last gasp of a liberal failing an argument. Indeed they are. > I never once attack you personally. Nor have I you. You are mistaking feeling offended for a personal attack. It's ok. It's a common point of confusion for Millenials. You committed early on to the proposition that this is a breach of contract. When presented with facts to the contrary you refuse to accept them. That is like the kid caught with cookie crumbs on his face and still denying he hate the cookies. He's sticking to his story despite the ridiculousness of it. That's not a personal attack It's literally a description of what you are doing. A personal attack is "you're a moron." > The basis of the discussion is the definition of "patently offensive" The contract sets the definition. Again, the definition applied by courts to statutory interpretation does not apply to private contracts. Legal definitions have a finite scope, just like variables in a programming language. You can't call a definition from outside of its scope. The law doesn't work like that. For example, 7 USC § 1a(20) defines a "financial institution." That doesn't mean that every contract written in the United States where the words "financial institution" appear must use that definition. That's just not how it works.