I have to admit I haven't checked out her recently, but I'm not accusing her of anything - I'm just saying that even if she delegates a part of her work (which is what all successful business people do) it is not a cause for condemnation.

Aside from the wankers, people don't watch her videos because she's a "successful business person", but because she's a maker or because she's demonstrating the capabilities of newly available machinery. The Make Magazine guy's erroneous accusation was that she wasn't really a maker, just a successful business person. He was wrong about that. That's the context in which it would be reasonable to read your comment as an accusation, and, as far as I know, a false one.

I have some general advice for you - please assume that people argue in good faith.

I didn't think you weren't arguing in good faith. I still don't think you weren't arguing in good faith. That's why I was explaining some important extra context to you that you seemed to be unaware of.

It seems that I've misinterpreted the intent of your comment. I apologize for the accusation.

No worries. I'm sorry I wrote something so unclearly that you felt I was attacking you. It wasn't my intent.