No no no no no no no no no no no no no. You've quite misunderstood. You see, what you've done there is you've repeated your leader's claim that there was "poor research" in the article. If you want to prove that you're not blindly following his every word, you'll have to say what was poorly researched, like Bobak didn't. I don't imagine you will, because it's pretty unlikely that you'll have read the article, and are in fact just repeating without question. It's cute! Don't be ashamed.
I don't know if there are factual errors or proof of poor research in the article. No one's offered any so far, which indicates there probably isn't. But if there is, by God I'll be so angry with Stuart. I'll be at the front of the line to call him a mean name!
It'll be fun when Bobak starts handing out Kool-Aid!
I'm the cult follower says the guy who joined the boards to, as those wacky Brtis would say, slob on Stu's knob. Again, pot, kettle, black.
So if my choice is between some dried up 41 year old arrogant prick who can't see past his own delusions of grandure and a trusted member of this forum for years, you'll have to forgive me if the latter sounds just a smidge better.
More then likely I'll get around to reading the article myself, but Stu's piss poor reaction, akin to a Gamefaqs rant, pretty much tells me the level of workmanship and quality present in such an article.
Though there is a bright side to all of this. If a "wanker" such as Stu can get a job writing for magazines, the mentally handicapped of our society have another creative outlet other then making houses out of popsicle sticks. Thanks.