I see nothing wrong with beginning the post "What bullshit". It's a concise statement of what he believes. And what's wrong with stating your belief up-front and then providing the argument afterwards?
My objection is that he does not provide the evidence! He gives a bunch of sensible reasons that Dvorak might be better, but never once addresses anything the article says. You don't get the right to call something "bullshit" with out giving your reasons. If you do give your reasons, saying "bullshit" is unnecessary.
So if you give an argument for a conclusion then you shouldn't state what the conclusion is? Judge that point with reference to your own comments.
You are mischaracterizing what I said. Of course, stating the conclusion is fine. My point is that he never gave an argument for the conclusion that the article is bullshit. There is not a single statement in the article whose truth has been called into question.