Didn't you read the article? So what did you mean by "with that goes the argument", if not to disagree with the argument presented in the article, and what did you think the article was arguing?
What I don't understand is why you'd throw out the entire argument, which makes a lot of sense to me, just because you don't agree with what it said about selfies and twerks.
Disagreeing with an argument does not mean supporting the inverse of the argument. That is a false dichotomy fallacy.
The argument is that Glass is a failure as a product as it is universally disliked and too expensive. Glass however is clearly not an actual product on sale in general and does not appear to be universally disliked.
With that, goes the argument. If Glass were a real product and really disliked they might have a point. At this point however it's a technology demonstrator focused on by people with a loose understanding of these matters.
Disagreeing with one part of an argument does not make the whole argument invalid, because they gave many reasons Glass is a failure, and the argument does not depend on every reason they gave to be true.
For example, maybe they wanted to make a joke. To be funny, you know. Ha ha. Oh wait, your name is "hahainternet," so why do I have to explain this to you?
Is it that the word "glasshole" tweaks you so much, and you don't find it funny? Hey wait, you're not actually wearing one of those things, are you??! Aren't glassholes socially obligated to disclose stuff like that in public? Are you recording this??!
https://www.facebook.com/RobertScoble/posts/1015157966444465...
Those are the only substantive arguments they offer, and no, I don't own a Glass. I wish I did but I can't justify $1500 on alpha/beta tech.
I wear glasses though, so they could be incredibly useful to me.
No, no it hasn't. With that goes the argument.