TFA indulges in a type of fallacious reasoning I see way too much of in philosophical discussion. The general trend of the argument goes:

1. "A" proposed theory "X".

2. "B" interpreted "X" as "Y" and used that as a guide to action.

3. Since "X" and "Y" are different, the actions of "B" are somehow illegitimate.

If the actions of "B" are of interest, the proper focus of study is what "Y" really consists of and how it relates to the actions and outcomes of "B". What "A" did or did not propose really is of no interest unless you are specifically studying "A" instead of "B".