>
Its only a fallacy when the authorities are not authorities.
>

Well that is just TOO easy....both in terms of the wording AND the subject matter.

First off, you need a lesson in logic 101... The appeal to authority logic bust goes something like this:

X is considered to be an authority
X makes claim about S
Therefore, BECAUSE X said it, the claim re: S is true

So you see Mike, IF an authority is involved, then the fallacy applies. Otherwise, why would they call it the fallacy of "appeal to authority".

It goes without saying that the claim may be spot on. Nonetheless, it will not be for the reason you cite. i.e., the claim's correctness has independent standing.

The point?

Make your own points - and the let the points stand on their own. i.e., don't try to bolster the credibility of a point by parroting somebody else.


>
And the point made was that no matter what objections you receive to your arguments you plow ahead, pretending like they were never raised.
>

Sorry Mike, but you don't make compelling arguments. You make too many broad conclusions - without much in the way of support. I make a lot of conclusions. With that in mind, I provide a basis for those conclusions. It is the all important word "because". Of course, that does not mean you can cobble anything together for the basis of your conclusion. It has to have some basis in fact. Again, I do not find your conclusions all that compelling BECAUSE you don't provide much if any basis in fact to support your conclusions. Conjecture and opinion, you do have a lot of that.