If you read that part, it certainly didn't inform what you wrote. You tapped out the same tired boilerplate argument as ever without actually saying why he was wrong to dismiss those arguments up front, or without even acknowledging that he did so. So your post was indistinguishable from what someone would say who hadn't read the article, and that's why I called you a jerkhole: I'm pointing out how you didn't add any signal to the conversation. If you'd been serious about adding signal instead of noise, you would have acknowledged that he anticipated your argument, and made a counterargument to his dismissal. You did not. You just said "no it's not, because I say so."