What you're doing is arguing semantics. Whoever feels like replying to a reply of a reply long enough that all meaning has been lost and the other person stops posting, is the "winner." Whover is smarter and can come up with great examples can easily make another person defensive and tired of arguing. This person can then "win" arguments simply because the person who just wrote about actually developing something is busy developing.
This is actually what causes that disparity between what people think of new technology when it first comes out and two years later, as long as it still exists: one party was busy developing, the other party was busy coming up with reasons it can't be done, getting pats on the back for being so smart, then riding that dopamine rush to nowhere fast for two years until they meet the product again and just say "oh, I was wrong." Then this cycle continues. That's what PG's essay is about.
But being unable or unwilling to argue semantics does not make the original poster's ideas wrong. The only way to prove a determined person wrong is to engage in direct competition, and from the rear, of course, as the other party is already ahead of you. For obvious reasons, it's easier and "smarter" to come up with "logical" reasons than to "do the full experiment" to show it's wrong. We're not talking about math equations here, so a productive person's potential is more than his writing but also his skills, experience, credibility, and dedication, which can't all be ignored.
Actually you're wrong because you're assuming that writing (trolls or anything) isn't a skill. It is, and if you got trolled it's your own fault and I'm your feelings were hurt. In addition, you obviously don't understand the first thing about "semantics."