If you want to laugh at her argument, maybe link to her actual work[1], and recognize that the fact that the page you link doesn't is a clue that they're not in

If you want to laugh at her argument, maybe link to her actual work[1], and recognize that the fact that the page you link doesn't is a clue that they're not interested in having people seriously engage with it, or even examine it at all. "They do link to it," you say, "but it's behind a paywall!". Yes, the anthology they link is behind a paywall. But the actual article is freely available (and is also 4 years old). I uncovered this with about 2 minutes of googling. Is this really the standard of discourse you want to uphold? [1]http://ed-osprey.gsu.edu/ojs/index.php/JUME/article/view/223/148 http://ed-osprey.gsu.edu/ojs/index.php/JUME/article/view/223...