i said that comment is a bit over the top.  i was talking about &quot;either Lewis is a credulous idiot who is not competent as a journalist, or Katsuyama is an idiot who was not competent as a trader&quot;   it seems Locklin&#x27;s goal is to say Michael Lewis is an idiot, which is ad-hominem attack. The need to call him an idiot, combined with the &quot;retard&quot; comment is really not needed and doesn&#x27;t add anything.<p>i do appreciate your explanation for how the goal of Lewis&#x27;s book is based on a fallacy