It's amazing how much the author lacks self-reflection. If there was no misunderstanding, would he have even bothered to read or even know about the paper at a

It's amazing how much the author lacks self-reflection. If there was no misunderstanding, would he have even bothered to read or even know about the paper at all? The bad use of the paper was probably his primary driver of engagement. Otherwise at best you would see the source or original tweet, think "Oh that's nice" unless you have a serious interest in linguistics, and move on. The darkly cynical thing is that as the flood of information grows, the value of that information lessens as opposed to its ability to create a happening and drive engagement. You can say the sky is blue all you want, and it's true, but people will mill about the person who says the sky is green because they can interact with it, if just to disprove or mock the person and use it as a "gathering place" like the author himself did. I mean, this is how flat earthers exist. The idea is rubbish but it creates a space that people inhabit.