As I was trying to clarify in my first reply to you, I was not taking the OP to task for expressing an opinion. I was taking him to task for making a factual claim without evidence, a factual claim that also happens to part of a PR campaign funded by one of the parties in the dispute. That makes the claim a priori suspect, and repeating it without a reference subject to valid criticism.

I will own the fact that I phrased my criticism inartfully at first (it was late), but I stand behind its substance as clarified here.