Your first critique was ad-hominem.

Your second critique: assumes the original presentation had to be accompanied by methodology and proof to be of value; derives an implicit attempt-to-distort from your perspective of the scene at hand; devolves into paternalism to end in unsubstantiated moralism.

I might even agree with the spirit underlying your words—given, say, the meaning-loss of the company’s name—this just isn’t the way to convey it.