Talk politics.

I did read them. I noticed much of her counterargument was not so much the methodology as her claims that the argument made was a lying deceptive one made by a lying deceiver. Her article had far more personal attacks than methodological criticsm, to the point that I was not sure if the methodological criticism of proportion was in fact criticism or another bit of how the person there is a lying cheating deceiver.

In a professional argument, one does not use those words. Sure, I could cite from a liberal blog something I agreed with or from Michelle Malkin on the once in a blue moon occasion I agree with her, but that's not an academic citation, which I assumed you realized was in fact what I was referring to.