You know, woodpanel, the reason I chose the structure I chose is because when I began to write it, I thought that I would be able to find that the whitepaper easily meets the criteria I selected beforehand for intentional indecipherability. In other words, I thought I would be able to show that it is just fishy.

For this reason, I decided to be very thorough in my review methodology, so that I wouldn't be accused of cherry-picking. After all, no paper is perfect. That's why I set up criteria beforehand. I had never read the paper.

As you can see, the paper actually (to my surprise) totally fails the intentional indecipherability criteria I picked.

The top-level comment in this case was totally unwarranted.

This is not the conclusion I expected to come to when I did the review. It would not be honest of me to hide my actual results.

(In addition to myself, you will notice that another person wrote "It is a good paper. I could follow everything".)