I'll go back if I have time.
But, asking someone to read an article that the author of the article himself admits is "long" is one thing. Expecting us to read the whole thing even when the premise and initial supporting opinion seems flawed is another thing. All okay.
Yet, I don't think there should be an expectation that the conversation is necessarily invalid if we disagree with the cited article or even some of its premises.
If he sews it up all neatly in the second half of the article then my bad. But his bad too. Getting to the point is as important as making one.
But, asking someone to read an article that the author of the article himself admits is "long" is one thing. Expecting us to read the whole thing even when the premise and initial supporting opinion seems flawed is another thing. All okay.
Yet, I don't think there should be an expectation that the conversation is necessarily invalid if we disagree with the cited article or even some of its premises.
If he sews it up all neatly in the second half of the article then my bad. But his bad too. Getting to the point is as important as making one.