I would like to think my response makes relentless fun of your position (and a mockery of your delivery) as well as chide the position of those that will inevit

I would like to think my response makes relentless fun of your position (and a mockery of your delivery) as well as chide the position of those that will inevitably strawman it. Neither such positions addresses the real crumbling core which is that the conclusions of the paper do not reasonably follow from the bibliographic methodology, and as such the paper's entire approach is quite illogical from the get-go. The positions I make fun of accept this insanity. Toodle-oo~