The point of my comment was the author.

This is another example of the ad hominem fallacy fallacy, wherein any assessment of a person making an argument is judged out-of-bounds because of the existence of the ad hominem fallacy. Here is an example of an actual ad hominem fallacy:

Arguer: "Bitcoin is doomed to fail because it lacks a central banking authority."

Opponent: "That's bullcrap because you're not a trained economist."

Here is an example of the ad hominem fallacy fallacy:

Arguer: "I looked up Karl Denninger and it says he's the founder of the Tea Party."

Opponent: "Also he's a professional curmudgeon who sold an ISP once and has no economics training."

Arguer: Ad hominem!

I am not too invested in this particular thread, but the ad hominem fallacy fallacy drives me up a wall a little bit.

It's not out of bounds tptacek. It just does nothing to advance the discussion around the points made. That's why Ad hominem arguments are not a valuable contribution. If the goal of the discussion is to support or rebut the merits of the argument being put forth. I'm really interested in whether or not these are valuable points. Whether the author is gay, outgoing and wears flamingo shirts or is a grumpy old man in a shack in the mountains isn't material.