Because I am not appealing to them.
You are in the fallacious sense of the phrase. The classical fallacy isn't to appeal to scholarship or even to the argument of a single expert so long as the subject is that expert's area of specialty. It is to refer to (indirectly or directly) to some "authority" (the Pope, the King, "any history book"...) or my (still favorite) example of yours: mistaking a translator's commentary for Tactitus and arrogantly citing a "volume" Tacitus never wrote and attributing to Tacitus the translator's comments.
When you make blanket statements about e.g., Wallace's historicity and substantiate them with nothing but references what "any history book" would (according to you) indicate, this is at best an appeal to authority. I say at best because you don't refer to any history books you simply assert that "any" would do, but were it true that you could refer to an actual expert here (and you can; there are more than enough bona fide scholars who accept Wallace's historicity), you didn't. You dismissed another's claims with appeals to nebulous history books as the basis for your argument.
You are just launching into yet another pointless, repetetive attack.
"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so". Personally, I find it important to address someone who makes disingenuous claims about objectivity, repeatedly lies about their own authority, maligns others while playing the victim (and in the same posts), and makes actual classical fallacies while dismissing legitimate arguments by falsely asserting they are fallacies. I find it especially important when such dishonesty pervades a forum for learning, the exchange of ideas, and to the extent possible mutual refinement and development of notions, ideas, beliefs, etc.
Wow Legion, you shamelessly dishonest cretin - I told no lies about my qualifications.
So you are an historian, an expertise in espionage, you majored in history, you majored in political science (remind me of that last claim which you attempted to equate with the claim to expertise in espionage)?
Yes Legion, my History and Politics degree specialised in espionage and fundamentalist violence
So the fact that your degree (which wasn't apparently in history itself but rather a joint degree) makes you an historian and a specialist in espionage? I have a few degrees too, but I don't call my self a psychologist or a specialist in classical history and ancient Greek and Latin because of my undergrad education. My father majored in physics at Dartmouth and then went to law school at Cornell and has practiced in law for some ~40 years. Is he a specialist in physics because of his degree in physics?
How many times are you going to repeat the same false accusation just in this post I wonder?
I haven't made any false accusations. However, as someone who has argued that references to scholarship are fallacious appeals to authority and fails to distinguish between expertise and getting an undergrad degree I can see how you misunderstanding of both academia and argumentation may present you with problems here.
However, it takes neither a degree nor any particular familiarity with formal logic to recognize that someone who simultaneously asserts we have can confirm Wallace's historicity and dismisses the idea that we can't that of Jesus by referencing "any history book" yet simultaneously not only fails to cite anything for any claims about historical Jesus studies or historical methods WHILE moreover
dismissing references to REAL scholarship by claiming THESE are fallacious appeals is not interested in anything other than disingenuous, dogmatic insistence that a view informed by next to no research is substantive in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
I have made no appeal to authority.
You can't make claims about whether you have or haven't when you have so thoroughly demonstrated you don't understand the actual fallacy (and that's generously assuming you aren't simply deliberately distorting it).
