It is obvious from the fact that we are discussing the original article at all that this issue is more complicated than you make out.
I already addressed the underlying issue you raise in my original reply; it was point #1. Perhaps you would care to further the debate by replying there, instead of resorting to sarcasm and mockery?
I already addressed the underlying issue you raise in my original reply; it was point #1. Perhaps you would care to further the debate by replying there, instead of resorting to sarcasm and mockery?