I misunderstood: I thought you meant I had called someone a name here in the comments. In my linked article I tried to lend some support to Maisel, whom Gruber had obscenely attacked, repeatedly calling him a "dick", by saying "If Maisel is a 'dick,' then John Gruber is a scumbag". You are welcome to characterize this as "calling people names", but I think that's an odd characterization. In the article I supply plenty of supporting evidence for "scumbag", which I nevertheless entomb in a contingent clause.
"presuming that he dug for dirt instead of maybe following conversations": I presumed nothing; he himself linked to the article that I claim he used disingenuously. He told us where he got the "dirt".
I notice that you don't seem to try to defend your other claims, but I'm having some trouble making grammatical sense out of a few of your comments. You seem to be complaining that my writing is "muddled", but I can't be sure, because the very sentence where you are trying to do that is a syntactical trainwreck.
I thought you might have had a point about me not being on topic, but the upvotes on the comments you are complaining about give me some reassurance.
"presuming that he dug for dirt instead of maybe following conversations": I presumed nothing; he himself linked to the article that I claim he used disingenuously. He told us where he got the "dirt".
I notice that you don't seem to try to defend your other claims, but I'm having some trouble making grammatical sense out of a few of your comments. You seem to be complaining that my writing is "muddled", but I can't be sure, because the very sentence where you are trying to do that is a syntactical trainwreck.
I thought you might have had a point about me not being on topic, but the upvotes on the comments you are complaining about give me some reassurance.