OK, I am unqualified to comment on this proof because the math is over my head, but what is wrong about Deolalikar's response that is posted in the article? Th

OK, I am unqualified to comment on this proof because the math is over my head, but what is wrong about Deolalikar's response that is posted in the article? The author copies the comment, does not point out where it is wrong, and goes on to talk about how the methods behind the proof may be useful even though it is still probably unfixable. Does a more mathematically sophisticated person really read Deolalikar's comment and immediately recognize it as invalid and/or desparate? To the point where we're now saying that to engage and respond to critiques is to "behave like a crank rather than a scientist"?