When you label Atwood's response a DH2, you're saying his response was a weak form of disagreement with the central point of your Boss essay. I agree, but I th

When you label Atwood's response a DH2, you're saying his response was a weak form of disagreement with the central point of your Boss essay. I agree, but I think you're missing a bigger point than your essay's thesis. In your definition of DH2, you say: "So if the worst thing you can say about something is to criticize its tone, you're not saying much." Atwood and other "distasteful" responses aren't saying much about the essay's central point. True. But the central point of your essay is of less interest than another point, say a well-known entrepreneur's view of the world and of MegaCorp programmers in particular. "It matters much more whether the author is wrong or right than what his tone is." I think it depends on what the author is arguing and who the author is. If the author is a presidential candidate and he's arguing some trivial point but showing utter contempt to women in the debate, then the real story is his treatment of women and not the trivial point. The candidate doesn't get the luxury of dismissing outrage to his contempt by saying the critics simply don't get his trivial point. You keep trying to redefine all criticism as refutations of the central point, even though many of those criticisms didn't object and even agreed with your main assertion.