seriously, what's with all the fucking downvotes? has nobody here ever seen a formal argument or a logical fallacy? It's because you're being very persistent a

seriously, what's with all the fucking downvotes? has nobody here ever seen a formal argument or a logical fallacy? It's because you're being very persistent about reading something into the statement that really isn't there. Dropping well-respected names is not sufficient to make an appeal to authority. The speaker must also claim that the people named would support his position. Anderson does not do this. His use of those names is to point out Cambridge's prior history of supporting dissemination of information someone with power wishes to suppress. There is no appeal to authority, just a claim that this is how they roll. Why is this so hard to understand?