I was merely pointing out a flaw in your argument (which was not the lack of proof. That was for the author's argument) and then pointing out a flaw in the auth

I was merely pointing out a flaw in your argument (which was not the lack of proof. That was for the author's argument) and then pointing out a flaw in the author's argument (that nonetheless would have not detracted from any point but was confounding the main problem) and then elaborating upon a possible reason why the response from the community was so visceral (which I think is an adequate response to you thinking the situation is unbelievable). I was not agreeing or disagreeing with any of the community's response.