Every single piece of Philip Greenspun's writing I've ever read has seemed (to me) to be a massive collection of assertions with absolutely no logic backing up

Every single piece of Philip Greenspun's writing I've ever read has seemed (to me) to be a massive collection of assertions with absolutely no logic backing up any of them. Some of those assertions turn out to be correct, of course. But in terms of quality of discourse, Greenspun is roughly even with your average internet troll. I guess it's ironic that this post is itself completely unfounded. But it's like 2:00 and I'm really tired and it astonishes me that this blog post could get so much support here, so I'd just like to get this ball rolling and see if any of you agree with me.