It doesn’t seem like you actually read what I wrote, or else you, like OM, are willfully interjecting your own presumptions over what I have stated is my good faith effort to read and engage with the text which was presented to me.
If someone writes something with the aim to convince others, especially if it is meant as a “primer for the masses” as OM claims, then (as I have said again and again) it ought to present a logical argument to the reader, step by step. That is the respectful and effective way of convincing an audience (unless you just want to appeal to their emotions or preconcieved biases). It is further not uncommon, and often helpful to answer possible objections ahead of time in your text.
If someone wishes to convince others, the burden is on them to make an argument, not the reader to go hunting around or post questions to a forum.
Furthermore, I never asked OM or anyone here to explain or give proof. I pointed out the poor quality of the paper’s argument. This had little to nothing to do with the conclusions the paper drew (I disagreed with one conclusion, but I was not closed to the possibility), and everything to do with how poorly presented and argued it was.
And, even if I had asked someone to explain it, or invited discussion of it… this is a discussion forum. The paper was presented as a resource. It is reasonable to exchange opinions and if one wishes to give explanations or alternate views.
I took the time to start reading the paper, long enough to taste the quality (or lack thereof) of the writer’s style and argumentation. It does not take reading a whole paper to do that.
And, again, as a reader, especially of a “primer for the masses” it is not on me to go digging around for evidence to support the author’s point he is trying to convince me of.
