What I see is humoring Mets when he nitpicks definitions/terminology or brings up outside studies/math/interpretations (As shown in innumerable quotes, including what he just quoted) gets used as evidence that one is being dishonest when convenient. That's why in the case of The Week I no longer accept evidence from anywhere but the only study they cited & the article itself and I generally independently verify any evidence posted by Mets otherwise. I've always encouraged others to independently verify stories/sources in the past, so if people decide to do the same to any links I post because of this opinion then I encourage it anyway.
In the spirit of that encouragement: