Not sure which part. You quoted an implication. Do you find my description in the antecedent arrogant (i.e. my characterization of the beginning of the article)

Not sure which part. You quoted an implication. Do you find my description in the antecedent arrogant (i.e. my characterization of the beginning of the article), or the implication itself? If the former, I spent quite some time to argue in favor of my opinion in my original comment. You are welcome to argue the opposite. Just calling it "irony" is not much of an argument though. If the latter, then I'd like to understand why. Do you argue that no matter how nonsensical some text, you need to read it fully before expressing any thought about it? Or do you mean something else?