Shallow comment with no provided insight. vs. I read the comments on HN looking for the dissenting view as that's where I often appreciate the most value. I'd

Shallow comment with no provided insight. vs. I read the comments on HN looking for the dissenting view as that's where I often appreciate the most value. I'd love to see you expand upon your reason for both disappointment and then provide some concrete counter examples that highlight Paul's lack of historical rigor. Which of my comments do you prefer? (Note: I prefer the latter. Since you're the only dissenting view I've seen so far, I'm asking you to expound if you would, please.)