This guy went to the trouble to gather data, chart it, try to show his readers something interesting, and your response is, "He produces dull, reliable software, so he can't know anything about who is a good software engineer."
You did not address his point, the validity of his data, or his reasoning. You simply said that his argument is not valid because of who he is and what he does for a living.
Maybe if you'd said something like, "To the extent Spolsky's essay implies that Fog Creek is a place where geniuses crank out the Requiem of software on a daily basis, I disagree because X, Y, and Z," it might not have come across as an ad hominem attack on his point about the differences between good and bad programmers. Frankly I don't think many YC readers care about Fog Creek -- they're here for the more fundamental wisdom about programming.
I think one point thats worth pointing out is that in a lot of Spolsky's opinions regarding whats good and bad CS seem to be highly influence by the fact that he couldn't cut it in terms of theoretical computer science coursework back in college, or at least thats the sense i get from his writings....
This guy went to the trouble to gather data, chart it, try to show his readers something interesting, and your response is, "He produces dull, reliable software, so he can't know anything about who is a good software engineer."
You did not address his point, the validity of his data, or his reasoning. You simply said that his argument is not valid because of who he is and what he does for a living.
Maybe if you'd said something like, "To the extent Spolsky's essay implies that Fog Creek is a place where geniuses crank out the Requiem of software on a daily basis, I disagree because X, Y, and Z," it might not have come across as an ad hominem attack on his point about the differences between good and bad programmers. Frankly I don't think many YC readers care about Fog Creek -- they're here for the more fundamental wisdom about programming.