TAG at least engaged with some quotes of what I said and wrote some explanation of some of his ideas. Jiro is low effort and vague, and I read him as too biased/hostile to engage in some debate. TAG listened when I told him I wasn’t advocating infallibility and moved on to making a different point, but Jiro wouldn’t listen when I told him his comments were off topic, applied to arguments generally, and had nothing to do with my article and claims in particular. Jiro insisted it did apply to my article with no quotes, details or arguments. Also Jiro is all offense, no defense/alternatives, no ideas of his own to say, while TAG is a mix. And that’s not even getting into the article Jiro linked itself being extremely problematic and easy to misuse and use selectively, which is what Jiro is doing with it (though in a different way than it’s set up for).