As a general rule, when someone feels the need to call someone "famous" or their book "influencial," in order to make a point, they aren't and it isn't.

When someone refers to William Shakespeare, Aldoph Hitler, Jesus, Pope John Paul, George Clooney, or Bill Gates, they don't need to list the resumes of any of those people. Who they are is obvious, and if you don't know who the person is, perhaps you don't belong in the conversation about them. These people are famous.

When someone mentions David Mamet, Patty Hearst, Hillel, Pope Innocent II, Treat Williams, or Theron Musser, they never start with "famous." They list accomplishments of the person, which stand for themselves. I might say, Refer to Theron Musser as the lighting designer for the original "A chorus line" on Broadway. I might note, that Patty Hearst was a descendant of William Randolf Hearst and was brainwashed into committing crimes. But again I never feel the need to say that they're famous. Because they're not famous, they're experts.

When someone claims someone is an expert in a field it's easy to question them on that, "Really, what have they done?" If you say someone is a brilliant Mathematician, I can ask what they did and you can say that they won a Field's Medal for their work on number theory. So it's harder to pad a resume when you're making up an authority. Dishonest people rarely do that. Though if you want to see a bunch do just that, look up Intelligent Design, or read anything Happy-Wrap has said about 9-11.

So the easy way to give someone false credibility is to say that they're famous when they're not. It's deceptively hard to disprove claims of fame but I'll note that if I have to google them to find out who they are, and they're not the first listing under their name, they're probably not famous. Further, I'd note that fame is a dubious flag to fly above a source. George W. Bush is pretty well known, but, unless I need an authority on lying or mismanagement of public trust, I'm not likely to call him for advice.

The same general policy holds true in terms of looking at the credibility of a book, film, or article. If the hook of your argument is the fame of someone. You're probably reaching, just a little.

I'll note that I'm not accusing Jim Ley of lying. I think that he's a man of generally good intent and basic honesty. I think that he's been snowed because he doesn't take enough with a grain of salt. I think he believes that most everyone is as trustworthy as he is. So he reads books that call someone famous or their book influencial, and he believes it. This doesn't make him a liar. It makes him a victim, however. I am accusing Happy Wrap of lying. He's established himself to be a liar in the past either lying about his age in violating the Jyte TOS, or lying about his age to all of us.

Send an invitation to this claim