You are very carefully, rationally, and objectively taking the article at face value; I'm not granting that the article deserves to be taken at face value. One

You are very carefully, rationally, and objectively taking the article at face value; I'm not granting that the article deserves to be taken at face value. One reason is, the article is from the NYT which has burned me too often in the past. Another reason is that this thread did a really good job showing some of the severe rational weaknesses in the article -- the writing and thought here were much better than from the NYT. So, I reject that the article from tbe NYT was just an effort at rationalism and information. That hypothesis rejected, I look for another explanation -- the NYT is trying to jerk me around. Do I have solid proof? No, but doing some beautiful rationalism in the face of some low grade rationalism from the NYT begins to look like here at HN we are being manipulated and are being foolish.