> Weaker than "I don't understand what the paper says, only read a high level layman summary, not sure even what what the experiment was for, but I'm gonna piss on it anyway"?
Come on. Parent was saying what it looked like to a layman, and then asking for someone to address that and ask what was actually going on. No need to "piss on [him]".
Well, the parent also wrote "it sounds like they didn't accomplish much" and that the structure of their argument is a strawman -- without qualifications.
The way I read it, the qualifications were implicit through the questions he followed up with; and the whole point of the 'strawman' was that he wanted help to get a better understanding than the obviously wrong impression he got from his 'layman' reading of the article.
Come on. Parent was saying what it looked like to a layman, and then asking for someone to address that and ask what was actually going on. No need to "piss on [him]".