mysteries exist in the map, not in the territory.

Ask someone whose opinion you respect, and whom you consider to be a rational thinker, to read the post; see if it seems unclear to them. You have a habit, in your comments on Overcoming Bias, of saying comments are unclear to you, using that statement as a way to signal your low regard for the writer (or the comment). You are demonstrating what Michael Shermer describes as the reason extremely intelligent people find it so difficult to recognize their own biases or beliefs in weird things: their intelligence makes them much better at defending their biases, both to themselves and to other, perhaps less intelligent, people.

This post is exactly what you requested in your original post: an examination of a disagreement, using your own questions. I would think you would be pleased that someone cared enough to do it, and give you free subject-matter for your book.

Most of all, I am pleased to see that, after reading the post, you feel we have no disagreement. I assume that means we agree about the situation as I have stated it: the story was a cheap-shot, unworthy of the rest of your analysis, and almost certainly untrue.