I haven't read PG that carefully but had a bit of an idea that he could be on the pretentious side and that he seemed to hold public opinions that one is "suppo

I haven't read PG that carefully but had a bit of an idea that he could be on the pretentious side and that he seemed to hold public opinions that one is "supposed to" hold. So I started to read this article with positive "pre-judgement" I suppose, but the author's entire point was to question PG's assertions. However, the assertions seem very likely to be true to me, to the point that it is the author (Nathan J. Robinson) who has the burden of proof. So I have to agree with the comments that are already here, this is just an attack piece.