With "something meaningful", I'm using the parent's terminology. If Guzey has written arguments against non-meaningful stuff, I don't think that's evidence for the meaningful stuff being wrong. That's about the end of my stance; I definitely don't have the info or background knowledge (or effort!) to evaluate either the book or the response on technical merits.

My mistake. When you said:

> if he was wrong about "something meaningful", Guzey probably would have added it to his list.

I thought you were agreeing with the root comment that the things Guzey pointed out aren't meaningful.