I think you have every right to engage—not least because I started my response emotionally to begin with (and thinking why there are so many "good" NYT articles

I think you have every right to engage—not least because I started my response emotionally to begin with (and thinking why there are so many "good" NYT articles all the time). I honestly did not mean to offend you in particular and, given what you said, I really am regretting having made an emotional response without considering and qualifying all parts of my arguments now—I did not consider the possibility that one may or may not have considered (and/or may or may not have the technical insights into) all the references in the article when I commented. I would have shared something that I think is interesting without understanding all parts of it. Please accept my sincere apology for lumping everyone together (in fact, maybe there really isn't anyone who want to promote articles and people just happen to read NYT more often than any other sources), and I really didn't meant to offend you by venting my frustration. :( EDIT: typo. Clarification.