Generally, there's data to support the submission as well.
The submission did not have the data (logs, bug reports, etc).
So it's pretty much easy to disprove the rant as nothing more than a rant.
The submission did not have the data (logs, bug reports, etc).
So it's pretty much easy to disprove the rant as nothing more than a rant.
Generally, the claimant is irrelevant in peer review. That's a hard standard to hold up though.