Hardly. The words "nonsense" and "gibberish" are being bandied about -- anyone who uses those words for an article that's been reviewed and published in a good

Hardly. The words "nonsense" and "gibberish" are being bandied about -- anyone who uses those words for an article that's been reviewed and published in a good journal needs to have strong justification for such derision. No such justification was found. The criticisms sound not that different from politicians who condemn scientists for studying fruit flies and worms. I never said to take the paper positively. Giving something a charitable reading is different from agreeing with it. If I stop on the road and say to you that I think there's gas nearby and ask you where it is, and you say "we're surrounded by nitrogen", then, yes, you have produced a correct parsing of the sentence. But you have not performed a good faith effort to understand what I'm trying to say on my terms. The difference between a superficial reading of a text and a deep dive is obvious, at least to most academics. I had assumed it would also be obvious to the people who frequent this forum.