This article annoys me. Here seems to be the general structure:

* Generalize PG's statement until it is basically irrelevant to the point he was trying to make.

* Fill in a whole article speculating about the generalized interpretation of PG's comments.

* Say what PG actually meant in the end without showing any indication that the author actually understood what he was talking about.

* Paste a badly edited "primer" trying to explain the argument because the author obviously doesn't get it.