I think the original article touches on some good points, and I can understand the need for Laura to voice her opinion, but the author MUST have wrote the article with good intentions.

Personally, if I were really affected by an article I get in touch with the author, have a skype call and get all the concerns out in the open, and work together to revise the article so that both parties are happy with it. Then if the author didn't want to know etc, THEN I'd write the rebuttal.

I don't want to be harsh here, but Laura could have shared her input privately and together created a exceptional article with valid points and different perspectives, but instead when to route of going public and (potentially) damaging the authors name in the process.

We're all professionals, and can take criticisms, especially if they were voiced in a constructive way as a means to create something better. Laura's article begs the question whether her intentions are destructive, or whether her aim was to build and improve.