It would have been funnier if the flaws in the reviewers arguments were a little more subtle, but this would have required the author to actually _read_ the pap

It would have been funnier if the flaws in the reviewers arguments were a little more subtle, but this would have required the author to actually _read_ the papers he was criticizing. Even a bad reviewer that only skimmed half of the papers would have not made the errors in these reviews (e.g. saying things were unaddressed which were section headings in the original)...