The author's decision to link to a Fecal-Age Gawker article with zero substance in the introduction made it very difficult for me to take the rest of the article seriously. That he bases his arguments on something with so little actually being said damages his credibility.
While he does nothing to bolster his credibility, his argument nevertheless stands on its own merritt. If you'd like to respond to that argument, please do so.
His argument includes that article, which essentially boils down to "if you're correcting someone's grammar, you're wrong" without taking into account contextual difficulties that may have been caused by said poor grammar." Similarly, the author of TFA ignores most, if not all, arguments regarding contextual clarity.
