That's not what I'm saying at all.

Most people who argue that open source is equally or more secure than close source software do not argue that access to source code provides zero benefit to attackers. Instead, they argue that the benefit gained by the many additional sets of eyes belonging to researchers and other "good guys" outweighs the detrimental effect of letting the "bad guys" see as well.

The question in this instance is not whether the closed-source-superior or open-source-superior security camps is correct. The only related question is: "Does access to source code provide any benefit whatsoever to an attacker?"

I don't think I'm the "only person around here" who would argue that yes, it does. And that if you're taking the closed-source route, like this project's author, you can't provide copies of your source code to one specific attacker when they ask. If you do that, you're _definitely_ worse off (from a security perspective) than the people in the open source camp. I'm sure the closed-source-superiority people would agree.

Not necessarily - the normal argument for open source being secure is that the source code can be reviewed by the community and any security issues will be noticed and patched. In this case the parent specifically mentions source code the community doesn't have access to.