Let me clarify then: 1) The original comment you replied to noted that the lawyers making the allegations did not show that the text was copyrightable. This is

Let me clarify then: 1) The original comment you replied to noted that the lawyers making the allegations did not show that the text was copyrightable. This is a reference to the article pointing out that some of the text in question consists of mere statements of fact. 2) You replied with a sarcastic rhetorical question about whether the commentor knew what was required to be protected by copyright. 3) I replied to you that the content can't be mere statement of fact. This is the relevant characteristic in determining whether that content could be protected by copyright, not whether it was registered with the copyright office. 4) You got confused and started talking about the style of legal letters.