On the issue of the author's hypocrisy, I have clearly stated the contradictions in the article which satisfy the definition of the term. I don't think there is any confusion on that and after another read I don't think my comments on that point specifically could lead you to believe I'm confused about that issue.

So, what is it exactly that makes you think I'm confused? Was it anything in particular that I've said, or perhaps since you think I don't understand the article as a whole, do you think I'm making the wrong points entirely?