Do you really think there is any question that "may" and "can also" are synonymous?

I'll make it even simpler for you: You say, "One CAN NOT…" Wiki Article says: "One MAY… with the following conditions."

Oh, my goodness. You just have no shame.

But you're not right

Learn to read? You have got to be joking. I'm just flabbergasted that you can't understand the plain language in front of you.

1. It was a yes or no question.

No, because it doesn't, as I explained to you repeatedly.

Point one has never been, as you say, "Wikipedia stating: it is also a fallacious ad hominem argument to argue that a person presenting statements lacks authority and thus their arguments do not need to be considered."

If you believe Point 1, then Point 2, a direct quote from a trusted source, says that Point 1 is wrong

You apparently don't know how logic and proofs work.

It's a simple proof.

Again, you have been definitively proved wrong

"You have bypassed rationality."

"You've proved that you're not playing by any known rules of discourse."
- no, I simply proved you wrong.
There are no "rules of discourse" that magically make your erroneous statements correct.

"Where is your problem?"

"Read the ADDENDUM. I had forgotten how slow I have to go with you."
-already refuted everything you said in your addendum in the post to which you were replying (https://disqus.com/home/dis…

"I was challenging his Authority to comment on the topic."

"It's fascinating how you admit to my claims against you"

"Look, I've obviously hit an extraordinarily exposed nerve."
- You seem to believe in a lot of things that are directly contradicted by what has been said here.
Refer to http://www.avclub.com/artic… for a list of me pointing out - complete with quotations and links - just a handful examples of your explanation of events…

So that's all you've got, huh?