What you are saying is fairish, except for one thing: the ad hominem is not a fallacy in itself. At least not in all situation, as your statement would imply. There’s a generous literature on the “un-fallaciousness” of the ad hominem, and here’s a good start: http://www.dougwalton.ca/papers%20in%20pdf/87AdHom.pdf
Another thing and I’m off: what you are evincing here are better called “pragmatical” (as opposed to “pragmatic”) considerations. One could misconstrue it as “dealing with pragmatics” … which it doesn’t.
What you are saying is fairish, except for one thing: the ad hominem is not a fallacy in itself. At least not in all situation, as your statement would imply. There’s a generous literature on the “un-fallaciousness” of the ad hominem, and here’s a good start: http://www.dougwalton.ca/papers%20in%20pdf/87AdHom.pdf
Another thing and I’m off: what you are evincing here are better called “pragmatical” (as opposed to “pragmatic”) considerations. One could misconstrue it as “dealing with pragmatics” … which it doesn’t.