I'm going to say that the comment's tone was justified. The article makes strong allegations that aren't backed up by the facts. The onus is on the author to provide evidence and to understand the topic at a sufficient level to make their allegations meaningful.
If someone writes an article claiming someone is a murderer and they use DNA evidence to back their story, except they have no idea how DNA evidence even works or what DNA even is and, more so, the evidence does not actually back up their claims, well, that person is deserving of ridicule. It's not those who do the ridiculing who have breached the wall of propriety, it is the author who has done so.
The same is the case here. If you want people to treat your mistakes kindly, if you want to be treated with propriety and respect, then you need to be fucking circumspect about the allegations you lay down and you need to have an understanding of the lines of evidence you purport to bring to bear.
If someone writes an article claiming someone is a murderer and they use DNA evidence to back their story, except they have no idea how DNA evidence even works or what DNA even is and, more so, the evidence does not actually back up their claims, well, that person is deserving of ridicule. It's not those who do the ridiculing who have breached the wall of propriety, it is the author who has done so.
The same is the case here. If you want people to treat your mistakes kindly, if you want to be treated with propriety and respect, then you need to be fucking circumspect about the allegations you lay down and you need to have an understanding of the lines of evidence you purport to bring to bear.