I'm saying that, as a lay person myself, I am happy to be convinced by a persuasive argument made in good faith by a credible source. My friends and acquaintances who are knowledgeable in this field talking to me privately have less at stake professionally than someone writing an op-ed for public consumption.

Now, I am happy to change my point of view when I am unable or haven't the time to learn a topic more on depth even if I don't fully understand the details or resolutions of apparent superficial paradoxes. But when even basic explanations from an author defy logical sense - not a lack of domain knowledge - it raises a red flag for me. I'm not going to suspend critical thinking to entertain the fallacy of authority. I only cite the counterarguments I cite because even in their simplicity they demonstrate gaps in the case the author is making. I am more than happy to have someone better versed give a better account for why buybacks are worse than, say, sitting on cash or dividends.