> You’re going to need to explain how you conclude that I am making an appeal to authority.
Because of your phrasing: "Yes. It’s because of who he is."
> Even when he is wrong, it is more interesting to us than when a random blogger is wrong.
Relative to each other, perhaps.
However, is something wrong by PG more interesting than literally every other topic being discussed on HN, so that it "rockets to the top", to quote the comment you initially replied to.
In that phrase, “Yes. It’s because of who he is.”, I am not referring to the validity of his argument. I am explaining the fact that his posts receive a lot of attention.
There is simply no appeal to authority being made.
The rest of your comment isn’t clear, are you saying there is something wrong with people finding PG’s pieces interesting?
Because of your phrasing: "Yes. It’s because of who he is."
> Even when he is wrong, it is more interesting to us than when a random blogger is wrong.
Relative to each other, perhaps.
However, is something wrong by PG more interesting than literally every other topic being discussed on HN, so that it "rockets to the top", to quote the comment you initially replied to.