"A Broken Clock is Right Twice a Day"

There have a been a number of occasions in which someone has responded to me, "even a broken clock is right twice a day." I've had the comment directed to me personally and I've also had it directed toward Luther.  While the statement may appear to be logical, it's drenched in negative sentiment, and meant to be an insult.  It's tantamount to saying to someone, "I think you're a fool, but you got _____ correct. There are a few of reasons why I personally do not use this statement.

1."Even a broken clock is right twice a day" has the inference that someone is correct about something by luck or by chance. When used against me, it often infers that the conclusion I've reached on a topic is not the result of research and hard work. As my blog entries demonstrate, a lot of work goes into something before it's posted. 

2. "Even a broken clock is right twice a day" has the inference that someone is usually wrong on everything, but in a rare instance got something correct. I think this is just an expression of the ad hominem fallacy, of insulting someone personally even if one agrees with their point or conclusion. Rome's defenders have hurled this insult at me particularly when I present historical facts they've gotten wrong. They mention I'm correct and they're wrong but then proceed to insult me. 

3. I've seen "even a broken clock is right twice a day" applied to Luther after I point out that a defender of Rome trashes Martin Luther but then appeals to him positively. This is the same method of insult as described above.  My usual response is to turn the tables by showing that Rome's defenders are still using Luther as an authority.

For instance, I interacted with a defender of Rome that repeatedly uses this Luther quote: "In like manner He says, in Matthew xvi, to the one man Peter, who stands as the representative of the one and only Church" (A brief explanation of the Creed; Works of Martin Luther vol. 2 - p.373). This quote is meant to demonstrate that Luther ultimately believed Jesus established the pope / papacy in Matthew 16. Rome's defender ignored the fact that this writing was from 1520: a transitional year that ended with Luther being threatened with excommunication from the papacy and being officially excommunicated in January 1521. 

It is also rather odd since Luther went on to trash the pope and papacy numerous (if not countless!) times, demonstrated throughout his writings throughout the majority of his life. For instance, note these statements from Luther incorporated into The Book of Concord: 

[T]he pope is the real Antichrist who has raised himself over and set himself against Christ... [Tappert, T. G., ed. (1959). The Book of Concord the confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. (p. 300). Mühlenberg Press].

Accordingly, just as we cannot adore the devil himself as our lord or God, so we cannot suffer his apostle, the pope or Antichrist, to govern us as our head or lord, for deception, murder, and the eternal destruction of body and soul are characteristic of his papal government, as I have demonstrated in many books [Tappert, T. G., ed. (1959). The Book of Concord the confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. (p. 301). Mühlenberg Press].

Rome's defender rejected these statements and clung to his sole prooftext. At that point I simply continued to praise him for accepting Luther as an authority!