You're the one bringing his reputation into this though? Until you started interjecting, everything was about the article. That it was about how poor the articl

You're the one bringing his reputation into this though? Until you started interjecting, everything was about the article. That it was about how poor the article is doesn't make it ad hominem, it's a product of the lack of substance and direction of the article itself. Sometimes things people write aren't very good. And I said in a fair amount of detail why I can't find anything in this article to argue about other than its quality: I can't reconcile those questions to find a point to argue with. If I argue against the evolution-is-destiny part then the counterargument is wealth and vice-versa. I really suggest you re-read this article with a more critical eye because I honestly can't see what you see in it, and I don't think you really believe "people should read the author's other work" is a sustainable basis for submission quality.