So if I go read a couple weeks worth of daring fireball, I'm not going to find any posts disagreeing with something another pundit has written? In my experienc

So if I go read a couple weeks worth of daring fireball, I'm not going to find any posts disagreeing with something another pundit has written? In my experience pundits spend the majority of their time explaining their agreement or disagreement with the arguments of other pundits, so it seems odd to define that as second-order punditry. The author of the OP probably included some overdramatic language, but I thought the meat of the post was about why he disagreed with Gruber on a specific point. That may not be interesting to you, but I don't think it is categorically a waste of time either.