but recognizing people from their usernames gives credibility to what they're saying >>3
the call of accomplishments to reinforce an opinion >>4
This is precisely the kind of fallacy to avoid. In addition to >>6: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
One example of the use of the appeal to authority in science dates to 1923,[22] when leading American zoologist Theophilus Painter declared, based on poor data and conflicting observations he had made,[23][24] that humans had 24 pairs of chromosomes. From the 1920s until 1956,[25] scientists propagated this "fact" based on Painter's authority,[26][27][24] despite subsequent counts totaling the correct number of 23.[23][28] Even textbooks[23] with photos showing 23 pairs incorrectly declared the number to be 24[28] based on the authority of the then-consensus of 24 pairs.[29] This seemingly established number generated confirmation bias among researchers, and "most cytologists, expecting to detect Painter's number, virtually always did so".[29] Painter's "influence was so great that many scientists preferred to believe his count over the actual evidence",[28] and scientists who obtained the accurate number modified[30] or discarded[31] their data to agree with Painter's count.
Mona has a name field. >>7
https://textboard.org/prog/34#t34p105
Explain to me how an anonymous forum about programming can reasonably discuss programming beyond small fragments without some participants eventually becoming recognizable. >>4
I'm sure you can reasonably expect this technique to go over unchallenged on 4kids, but in this venue your attempt to switch from "who are only here to constantly link their github and their blog [...] desperate to have an identity on an anonymous board" to "some participants eventually becoming recognizable" simply communicates to us that you do not have an answer to the former and wish instead to deflect and slide to the latter.