An ad hominem attack would be something like, "your discussion about legal topics is so uninformed a monkey with a blunt crowbar could chisel better arguments." What you're complaining about is a reputation following you around this site after making several uninformed posts about your legal theories. But, here are some questions you're free to answer:

People have been asking me to provide some legal perspective on voat.co's hosting company denying them service

Who are these people, exactly?

and how it relates to ongoing legal action against reddit.com and its board of directors/CEO.

Oh, is that the "legal action" your firm "has taken an interest in"? Go ahead and link to the complaint/petition when it's filed. I'll wait . . .

We haven't fully determined how much responsibility reddit has for causing hosteurope.de to deny service to voat, (and I can't really talk in-depth about our legal investigation), but let me just say this: The speculation I've been reading on KIA and other sites about the matter are largely correct.

I'd love to see some documentation on this. Oh you don't have any? Ok.

As many of you have pointed out, someone clearly wants to shut down voat

. . . like the hosting site? Maybe because it was hosting allegedly illegal content and they didn't want that liability if the allegations were true?

and it stands to reason that reddit/Ellen Pao/associated political action groups from reddit are behind it.

You just said the speculation is largely correct, but now you're saying "it stands to reason" that it's correct. One of those means something very different from the other (which you would have learned in law school). Assuming you "can't disclose the evidence of an ongoing lawsuit" (assuming it existed), how does it "stand to reason" reddit/Pao is behind the takedown rather than prudent business practices? Feel free to demonstrate via a logical proof.

Reddit is losing many readers, and I'm certain their internal, predictive numbers paint a very bleak picture of future trends, vis-a-vis redditors deserting reddit for voat.

Again, this is a conclusory and speculative sentence. If you have facts to back this up, this a great time to add them.

It seems logical--and you'll have to excuse me for using ambiguous language, none of this has been confirmed yet

Again, we went from "largely correct" to "none of this has been confirmed." Just file the complaint and you have the full panoply of the federal rules of civil procedure for discovery. You can file it tonight and post the link! Again, I'll wait . . .

that reddit's legal department was behind the reports of "politically incorrect" content sent to voat.co's hosting company.

Let's just assume that's correct. So? What is your cause of action? How are you proving causation? Where do you even have SMJ?

This was most likely done at the orders of either Ellen Pao or Reddit's board of directors, for whom, ultimately, profits are the bottom line.

That is generally how corporations work, yes. Again, where is the cause of action?

Some have suggested that niche political activism groups on reddit are responsible, and this may be so, but it doesn't provide reddit any legal cover. Reddit's history of providing preferential treatment to some poltical groups is well known, and it wouldn't be hard (in my opinion) to show that these groups show their gratitude for their special status on reddit by committing fraud in order to help reddit, whether at the request of reddit or simply of their own volition.

A few things here. First, is it "your firm's" position that "niche political groups" are sending these reports? Because you just said it was "at the orders of either Ellen Pao or Reddit's board of directors." That's not necessarily inconsistent, but I assume you have some documentation backing that up? PMs, emails, etc. Second, you still haven't made clear what your theory is. Assuming reddit shows preference to some political views (speculative), and assuming that causes gratitude on the part of these political groups (speculative), and even assuming reddit, inc. asked these groups to file reports with voat's hosting company (speculative), what liability does reddit.com have? What liability does any individual poster have? And what is the cause of action?

Obviously reporting "incorrect" content to a web hosting company isn't illegal on its face. But if it can be shown that the reports were made fraudulently, that the "incorrect" content was misrepresented in some way, or that the reports were not made in good faith, but were instead solely for the purpose of providing Reddit an unfair commercial advantage, things get very interesting (legally speaking.)

Ah, ok this is starting to sound more like a cause of action. But you're claiming the relevant theory is based in US antitrust law? When the action at issue occurred in Germany? I wasn't aware Germany adopted Sherman, but I could be wrong (I'm not an /u/AntiTrustLaw yer, after all). In any event, let's say that theory works - how are you going to show apparently truthful reports were: (a) "fraudulent," (b) misrepresentative, or (c) made in bad faith? If they were truthful, and the content was illegal (or close to illegal), reddit wins on MSJ. If it was done "solely for the purpose of providing Reddit an unfair commercial advantage," you still have a causation problem. How are you getting around that?

If reddit (or groups associated with reddit)

Well, which is it? Which are you naming as defendants, and which do you have evidence against? No evidence? Ok let's ignore that.

are destroying competition with unfounded reports of incorrect content

Are they unfounded? They looked pretty accurate to me. I guess that's an issue for the "jury," right?

the possible damages in the civil case rise exponentially, because then we're not talking just about revenue lost in the past, but we'll also be able to calculate future revenue that voat will lose based on the fraud, and with a site like voat, that could be astronomical.

What was voat's profit last quarter? What is voat's projected profit for this quarter? Are you familiar with the phrase "speculative damages?"

And that's not even taking into account the loss of revenue and personal distress caused by the fact that "benign" content (like the voat.co owner's girlfriend's scientific papers) are also no longer hosted.

Are you arguing IIED? Seriously? Additionally, do you have any idea how much "revenue" voat's CEO's girlfriend made off that website? Assuming that was some, you apparently aren't aware that she would file a separate suit claiming all those things since she is not part of the corporate entity.

It's way too early to tell right now, but if the results of our investigation hold true, reddit.com might ultimately be forced to hand a significant portion of its resources to voat.

All the subscribers of FPH. Good riddance.

It wouldn't surprise me if, in a couple of years, voat literally owns reddit.

That's possible, since their future "could be astronomical."

Anyway, if you have any questions, feel free to "ask me anything."

What's your cause of action? How are you overcoming the causation issue? What is your evidence?

I obviously don't expect answers to any of these. I assume that you're so focused on using fallacious arguments because you can't answer what I'm actually asking.