[distcs]

So you think it is ok to dig up someone's past threads and show that they are 2nd year CS student to discount their point?

If their point is incorrect or wrong, why can't they be discussed on its own? Why is it necessary to discuss the person?

May I suggest reading DH1 of http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html?

> Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem—and a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders.

There are many others who are engaging with the arguments this young person made without bringing their age or professional status into question. That's a healthy debate. What is happening in this subthread is not!

[bamfly]

The background can usefully affect one's choice of whether, and how, to engage.

In this case, the post already was pretty poor, on its own merits, as has been pretty well covered all over this thread. The added info took it from poor, to poor and risible, and also probably worth ignoring or quickly dismissing with a post (for onlookers) then not continuing to engage, even for those who might otherwise be inclined to start a back-and-forth conversation about it. Like, one is unlikely to dig up some well of hard-won wisdom on this specific topic that might change one's mind, from this poster, by engaging with them, given that background info.

Who's speaking (or writing) matters. It may not matter for determining whether they're right or wrong, but it matters for how (and whether) one responds.

[tristor]

Both are good. I did both in my other comment. Appeal to authority and ad hominem may be fallacies, but there is truth to the fact this person is speaking advise without any basis for offering it, which is relevant and helpful to point out. It is improper to chastise someone for speaking the truth.