I see two problems with this situation. First of all, she wrote an article about a topic she admittedly knows nothing about. She says she doesn't like hunting, thinks it's wrong, etc. Obviously she's not a hunter, so what is she doing writting an article about the topic. The topic of the article was supposed to express the opinion of herself and others who don't like to see or hear about hunting, and thats fine. Then comment on that, and not what you think hunters do when they're out hunting, because you don't, and not what you think hunting does to nature, because you don't know that either. It's blatantly obvious that she did no research for this article, which would be fine had she stuck to the "opinion" side of it, as that is what type of article it was supposed to be in the first place. The second problem I see here is the fact that the original poster tried to go through and critique not only Renee's argument, but the argument of those who responded to her article. As I've stated before, this was an OPINION piece, not a hard hitting fact filled article. It's ridiculous to apply all of these "debate" like standards to a piece written about a persons opinion. The only thing one could comment on is the fact that she didn't gather any facts at all, she went off on a tangent filled with stereotypes and ill-informed preconceptions. You can't be suprised that people reacted the way they did. If someone had written a piece about black people all being criminals, or indians or the irish all being drunks, or asians being bad drivers, no one would be suprised at the reaction. The fact that she applied the actions of a few the the character of many is the reason for the backlash, and you can't rationalize her opinion or the reactions to it.