He's quite lucid in his understanding of typology. This recent crusade may very well be out of frustration, but isn't necessarily therein incorrect.
Usually Fs... but it's not his fault -- they often don't know how to precisely express what they mean. That's not really their fault either... they don't choose to hone nicety rather than diction. It's just what's more comfortable for them.He has a big tendency to misinterpret(intentionally or unintentionally) what other people mean.Factual errors, I'll agree to. However like I said, his conceptual understanding of typology is near seamless. Perhaps he's not got real anecdotal information, but since typology isn't really an anecdotally proven system, he doesn't have to.He likes to not respond at all to what are usually the most substantial points against him. He has, as has been very well confirmed by now, used plenty of logical fallacies, and he tends to make factual errors.
It would be nice however for him to restrain himself there.
I'd also like to ask that we don't pretend that rebuttal is really out of much more than anger. He's not wrong. He and I have discussed it online. I haven't read his post but unless he's drastically altered his stance from the time we spoke and the time he wrote this, he's definitely not wrong.