So you accuse the author of bad faith or at best laziness or gullibility. You are now obligated to provide superior explanation of the trading regulations, not just call names.
I tuned down the rhetoric a bit as that's not how I wished it to come off. I think the article is very good actually, I just wanted to introduce some scepticism regarding the PR explanation we're getting at the moment (and there might be something I'm overlooking that debunks what I've said, very possible).