However, even if it is not technically accurate, in the interest of getting the topic in front of as many Rails developers as possible, it's probably better to sweep that distinction under the rug and let them figure out for themselves whether it applies to them.
That said, I don't think what raganwald was saying was sophistry at all. Sophistry implies an attempt to deceive. He was just being pedantic and a little narrow with his definition of vulnerability.
So when you say his argument sophistry, and then follow up with "... and I'm not interested in playing the "try to be right on the Internet" game with you." you're just lashing out. So that's probably why people (not me) where downvoting without replying.
I'm not interested in playing the "try to be right on the Internet" game with you.
As I said elsewhere:
We probably agree that this feature should be taken out and shot, but are quibbling over which charge should be read off the indictment before giving the order to fire ;-)