To expand, your point that the guy kicks his dog addresses the argument, “does this guy have merit when talking about pet care?” However it does nothing to prove or disprove the actual point the guy may be making. For instance if he said that dogs should not eat apples, the fact that he is not someone with merit when talking about pet care does nothing to disprove the actual argument that dogs should not eat apples. You ignore true argument at hand.
Doesn’t matter actually. The question is whether the argument at hand has merit. Even if a guy kicks his dog, if he tells you it is bad to put a dog in a washing machine, the fact that he kicks his dog does NOT discredit his argument (in this case he would be correct). You must address each argument directly. Your opinion is exactly why this fallacy exists.
You get the full suite of programs (things like Outlook and Publisher) as well as full functionality on the versions that have metro counterparts (metro versions don’t have macros and things). Also the desktop versions are the better version to use on an actual desktop…