It doesn't, as I said in the very comment you're replying to: "I realize that I've violated the guidelines here in my response to other guideline violations".
> assuming they would have known who the other person
That wasn't my assumption. Although one ought to know who the submitted article author is, as that information is easy to obtain directly from the article.
> they responded as if they might have possibly missed something basic
That's the problematic part. We're not required to know who the HN commenters are, but we are required by the HN guidelines to treat them with respect and respond to the most charitable interpretation of their words.
My complaint isn't "You don't know saagarjha". Rather, my complaint is "You're assuming that saagarjha is an incompetent idiot, but saagarjha just so happens to be extremely competent and knowledgeable."
How does that fit with accusing the other person of "mainsplaining", of purposefully disrespecting an "authority" (sic), assuming they would have known who the other person is and it's only because of their audacity they responded as if they might have possibly missed something basic, and so on?