As you already iterated, the non sequitur is that you can be right at one thing and still be wrong about another one. Which means that this argument doesn't rea

As you already iterated, the non sequitur is that you can be right at one thing and still be wrong about another one. Which means that this argument doesn't really support the position. It is exactly the same position that you are not allowed to critique the writing style of Theo de Raadt, Linus Torvals or Ulrich Drepper because they are all excellent engineers, which is the major contention point and the reason for the documents existence in the first place. She is right in that the sentence does have some ambiguity, if you twist your brain enough, you can grasp what she is seeing. But I also think that the context firmly states the intention. If your cognitive position is that someone is an asshole, then you will eventually see everything written as being purposefully malicious I guess.