I think the arguments are indeed substantial. The emotional reaction (flame bait) was not relevant to the arguments made. It is a problem with the reader, and not what is read. (Namely their propensity to make value judgments where they do not belong, hence reinforces my argument concerning the need to avoid the use of 'Feeling' in rational discourse)
So far those who have said my claims were unsound have not backed this claim up with argument, and the few who have attempted to, misunderstood the text. Just like you did last time. I invite you to try again, this time after a more careful reading of the text.
I don't see any dichotomies or non-sequitars, as Samuel earlier mentioned, you're providing anecdotal support for my claims by relying on 'Feeling' when dealing with my posts and in effect making errors that I argue are results of the use of Feeling in rational discourse.