I like to feel the grit in my teeth while I still have them

Well, congratulations ! Sounds like you found something useful to do with your life, cause, your posts regarding the topic and the author of the article, are senseless.

but the irony .

What the heck are you talking about? What irony ? Just like the word slander, you don't even know what "irony" means.

flowing from @adornoe is so thick I am begining to think he is doing it on perpose.

What I do, is indeed, purposeful. But, not wasteful, like you seem to be doing with your rhetoric and defense of the "indefensible".

In his post "Oh, get over it. Why defend the indefensible?" he attempts to defend the indefensible and fails to get over it.

You are babbling and don't even understand what you're saying or trying to say. So,, explain that sentence of yours which seems to be very incoherent and very much rambling on with no particular direction. Get your thoughts together and then try your best; but, I'm pretty sure that, from what you've posted thus far, that you're just going to be as incoherent as ever.

Then he resorts to playground tactics and personally attacks me

You are the author of what you write, and I could go on and attack your statements and assertions, but, no statement ever comes out without an author, so, I go directly to the source, just like I did with the author of the blog, and now you.

only to follow that up with telling me to "...repeat grade school."

When I see a problem, I try to come up with a solution, and, the solution to your problem might be to "repeat grade school". There is a lot of common sense to be learned during the grade school years, and you seem to be lacking that, along with some of the basic meanings of some words.

He must be honest;

I call it as I see it, and I tell it like it is. I pull no punches. Sometimes, going along with foolishness encourages a lot more of that foolishness. You need to learn and heed that lesson.

you just can't make up stuff this dumb.

You call my statements dumb, but, you still haven't offered an informed and coherent argument against what I've said regarding the topic and the author of the article. Just calling me dumb or my statements dumb, isn't going to win you the argument. You have to do a lot better than that. A debate is not about ;who can use the biggest insults. It's about the facts.

What the author wrote was a lot of wishful thinking and a lot of misreporting. Not much in facts. You are doing the same and you don't really have an argument to back up the author's assertions. All that you have is a defensive posture to try to counter me through insults. Hey, I can be insulting too, but, at the same time, I try to back up my rhetoric with facts, and so far, you haven't done the same.

At the end he finally admits that he still doesn't understand what my original point was. Golden!

You still don't have a point, and you never had one.

Trying to defend a silly argument by the blogger is not a point. If you had a point in defending the blogger, you should have clarified or explained what the author was trying to say. Your argument against my posts were mostly a "defense" on behalf of the author, claiming that I was "slanderous", but, as I pointed out, you don't even know what the word means. Come up with a good argument to support the blogger and I'll re-examine and perhaps correct my opinion.

Ok, let me know if I am going too fast for you. I will speak more slowly if you like.

The problem is not that you might be "going too fast". Your problem is that, you have no clue about what you're talking about, and your incoherence would be the same whether you went slow or fast. The first step towards solving any problem, is recognizing that you do have a problem, and then you follow that up with possible solutions. Thus far, you're in denial about your problems.

The job of a tech blogger could depend on being in touch with the way things evolve in the tech world.

You have it wrong. It's not "could depend on being in touch"; it's "depends on being in touch". There should be no "could" in that sentence.

The blogger might be in touch with the tech sector, but, assumptions and wishful thinking and misreporting and omissions in reporting, are not part of reporting facts.

You stated: "In about one or two years, the blog and the writer above, will have been proven to be completely out of touch with the way things evolve in the tech world."

I stand by that statement. Assumptions and predictions are often wrong in the tech sector, and with so much competition coming along and with so many advances from so many players, making predictions is very foolish. Now, if somebody has "inside" information from a manufacturer or a developer which is almost certain to change the field in one or two years, then, I wouldn't fault the blogger for posting his glowing predictions about a certain product or a certain company. But, that's not what the blogger did, was it?

I think that qualifies as "words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another".

B.S.!

That statement of yours is so asinine. If a blogger cannot be challenged on what he "reports", then that blogger should not even be "reporting", and it doesn't matter if he's reporting facts or making predictions or making assumptions or blatantly lying. Even the president of the U.S. can be called a liar, and it wouldn't be slanderous.

Countering a prediction or assumptions is not damaging to anyone. Try to understand that once and for all!

That is all.

Heck no, that is not all!

You still need to go back to grade school, or at least to common sense school.

Here's a little bit of advice:

Quit while you're behind, or you risk getting further behind.

I hope by now we all understand what that is the definition of.

When you yourself don't understand the definition of the words you're trying to use, then you have no case to be trying to explain what the definition of anything is.

Now you can disagree with my opinion

Well, thank you. That is so kind of you to allow me to disagree with you. But, you would not allow me to disagree with the blogger. So, are the blogger's words more sacrosanct than yours?

but please don't take 5 pages to do so.

And now, you're going to be limiting my freedom of speech?

Look, I can keep it short and simple and accurate, and I can make it long and complicated and accurate. With some people, such as you, I try to get things crystal clear and with lengthy verbiage in order to try to make things so simple that even you can understand what I'm saying.