Not to Beat a Dead Horse But Victor Reppert Does Not Know What it Means to Poison the Well Either

I think he's feeling the heat. For a person to commit the fallacy of "poisoning the well" no argument is made except that which is against the person. I made an argument against him dismissing a book I had recommended. Now people can judge for themselves whether they can trust his judgment on other matters, but for me and my household I don't. Link. It's about probabilities. If a man does not know what an ad hominen fallacy is and if he does not know what it means to "poison the well" can we trust his Argument From Reason if he does not know basic college level logic?