| The wording implies that Aaronson does not know what he's talking about. >If you want to learn about actual Busy Beaver results [...] This is saying there is no discussion of the results in the article, which is not true. >Unlike Aaronson, he actually is on the forefront of Busy Beaver research [...] This implies Aaronson has no (or lesser) authority on the subject and suggests we should listen to somebody else who purportedly has more. Nowhere in @NooneAtAll3's comment is there an argument made against/for the contents of the article, an example of that would be: "Aaronson mentions X but this is not correct because Y" or something along those lines. Instead, the comment, in it's full extent, is either discrediting (perhaps unintentionally) and/or appealing to the authority of people involved. That's ad hominem. |