Oh the irony.  You use an appeal to authority to support your argument, but since you know this is not convincing to someone that already disagrees, you attempt to present the argument of said person directly - Thus contradicting your own reasoning and supporting mine by your actions.  If what you said was true, then you would not feel the need to present that reasoning at all.  But through the ages we have come to see that such an attitude is stupidly wrong, so you take the typical approach of presenting a hollow argument from a proposed authority while still depending on the weight of that person's position to carry the argument.  So we have now a bastardized version of the real "appeal to authority fallacy".  What you forget is that fallacy is the domain of those few and far between who have such conditioning as to be immune to the bandwagon effect, and who look for any way possible to get through to people that their reasoning is irrational.  The instant they succeed, they are joined by people who lack that same conditioning and eventually forget the original meaning.  The people you reference are no philosophers or logicians, for there can be no name for what that is supposed to represent that will persist through the ages unless it references the aforementioned conditioning.  But specifically regarding what this so called "logician" claims, he wishes that people can influence a debate without putting forth any argument at all.