You're right, I am a bit of a dumb ass, I'll give you that.
It is in our culture to call each other names like that down here in a friendly way e.g. hey cunt, or bloody wanker. I don't believe this is in your culture to do this, so I doubt that you are extending me the same respect I have shown you. If you are doing so, you are appropriating my Australian culture lol;)
So far you have used:
-a lie/misrepresentation of the description of an ad hominem to claim it legitimate.
-an ad hominem fallacy
-a strawman fallacy
-argumentum ad infinitum (repeated both the strawman and ad hominem)
-Tu quoque (or you too fallacy)
You have inadvertantly made:
-argument from ignorance (no one can prove it so therefore not true)
-shifting the burden of proof
You have done this on a personal platform of truth and logic, and a claim of fact and not a question of opinion. For this reason, anything else you say on that matter can be legitimately disregarded as illogical nonsense (and requiring scrutiny), on the basis of your historical use of logical fallacies. In other words, you have tried to use logical fallacies to demonstrate how logical you are.
That's how you legitimately use an ad hominem.
No contradiction present, you provided all the justification in your comments.
All the reasoning is provided in the comments, you have just chosen to "cherry pick" around them (another fallacy).