He was refuting my "greatly exaggerated" remark by going on to make the same points I was alluding to albeit directly and in more detail. So I was in turn elaborating on my choice of language.
I feel between this post and you're previous one that you are basically just agreeing with me via the process of nitpicking the language I used.
> If it were "nonsense" then one could flip the argument and say "ECC memory has no beneficial effect what-so-ever" - which be both know is untrue.
The original argument is like an implication ("no ECC => don't use ZFS"), which he refutes by saying (correctly), that file systems are generally affected the same way by memory corruption. Your argument seems to invert the original implication and drawing conclusions from that (fallacy of the converse, I believe). ∎