I second this suggestion if and only if Chris’s argument is correct, or more correct than the post he’s criticizing. If something in the Sequences turns out to be wrong it should either link to the correction or be removed from the sequence in question. Maybe with an explanation of why; errata for the Sequences, perhaps.
I don’t think it needs to be proven right, it simply needs to be a well written, informed critique. You don’t only publish an academic critique of someone if they’re definitively wrong.
I second this suggestion if and only if Chris’s argument is correct, or more correct than the post he’s criticizing. If something in the Sequences turns out to be wrong it should either link to the correction or be removed from the sequence in question. Maybe with an explanation of why; errata for the Sequences, perhaps.
I don’t think it needs to be proven right, it simply needs to be a well written, informed critique. You don’t only publish an academic critique of someone if they’re definitively wrong.