I just read Ed Brill's blog entry on Drip's article and noticed the comment he made on my response.

On the negative side, Shah seems to take the approach of "you are ill-informed, therefore you are wrong".  He, too, attacks the author rather than the content ("A part of me didn't want to blog about this... because it gives Mike's article more importance than it deserves").  

Re-reading my blog entry, I realize that my tone was rather sarcastic, and at times, it may appear that I'm attacking the actual author (Mike). My intent was not to attack the author, but the actual content of the article. Mike was simply stating his opinions on the technology which he has every right to do. Clearly, the presentation of my response was very poor. My apologies to anyone who was offended.