No. I read a lot of the replies. They attributed viewpoints to PG that he didn't come close to saying. Example: > [PG] thinks that those concerned with income

No. I read a lot of the replies. They attributed viewpoints to PG that he didn't come close to saying. Example: > [PG] thinks that those concerned with income inequality want communist style income equality. Nope - none of what PG said in his essay comes anywhere close to making that characterization of his opposition, and yet many people have attacked PG as if his view was this view, and other equally outlandish, baseless interpretations of what he actually said. They've said things like, "PG is blaming the poor for being lazy", which is not anything remotely like what he said. The people who wish to criticize PG's essay or otherwise respond to it would do well to simply quote his words directly and respond to the quote. What's actually happening is that people are projecting emotionally charged beliefs onto PG, and claiming that he said things or believes things he doesn't and that weren't in the essay, and then attacking those made up, straw-man ideas instead. It's really disappointing and frustrating for me to watch.