I did not call the author that, and the basis for what I did state, is not flimsy, and it's not the basis that you claim - I had no idea about the financed part when I read the piece.
I see that the bad faith attacks that I anticipated have finally arrived. if honkdaddy is still reading, this bad faith counterattack is why it's carefully stated.
You did, just thinly veiled it. But everybody understood what you meant, and you know it. You can talk about "bad faith" all you want, but the matter is simple - you read article you didn't like (which is OK) and instead of engaging it on merits you went right into guilt by association and Nazi comparisons (which is not OK at all), all while perfectly knowing it's not OK to do it, but "carefully stating" your message so you could say "akshually, technically, I did not use that word, so here! Gotcha!" (which is not OK at all again). But everybody knew what you mean, what you intended and what you did.
I see that the bad faith attacks that I anticipated have finally arrived. if honkdaddy is still reading, this bad faith counterattack is why it's carefully stated.