That link says the opposite of what you claimed. Of course, I don't agree with it anymore; I hadn't seen the email when I wrote it. You've refuted your own argument, but that's not interesting, since it was refuted one comment previously already. You've also misrepresented your argument (which was not "you held this position for a long time"), just like you did in the thread I linked to upthread; of course, like the Alexander email, your bogus argument is right there for everybody to read.
Fair enough about the not dredging up comments thing, I shouldn't have piped up, but you're taking this as waaay more of an attack than it was. The more nicely-phrased version might've been something like "If you're only casually acquainted with this debate, and are thinking of reeling off a low-effort paragraph or two of rebuttal, it's probably not going to go anywhere because his position on this famously contentious and vitriolic topic is well-studied." It wasn't phrased that nicely, because I like and respect Scott and find these threads a little triggering, but it was a mildly rude comment from the sidelines, not an accusation of devilry or a claim to be refuted. The "weird fixation" and "bogus argument" stuff is a little over the top.
It's not the rudeness so much as the dishonesty, as I explained. If you want to defend Alexander effectively, best not to create the perception that his supporters are amoral and untethered from reality.
