Comparisons between me and Prof.W are entirely inappropriate. We are hardly any sort of peers. He got a PhD from Yale while I was still an undergraduate at Stanford. He taught briefly at Stanford after I graduated. I spent most of the next decade trying to be a software engineer before returning to graduate school in Computer Science, NOT math, in 1993. I was admitted to the Stanford MS program but rejected from the PhD program, so I chose to start my PhD at my home-state university. I did not finish it.
I switched from Math to CS very much AS one of those people who, as NW himself very aptly put it, grew "brain- tired" from the sheer lack of organizational coherence and logical grounding of math-as-it-was-being-taught-in-my undergraduate department. I am entirely sympathetic to a lot of what NW has to say about the sociology of how grad students in the field get treated and how this relates to the logical grounding (OR LACK THEREOF!) of the field. GM was from the sci.math side of the thread and had not seen any earlier pro-NW statements I had made on the sci.logic side.
But none of that is the point. The point is that GM's decision to talk about vituperation and to accuse other people of making ad hominem attacks, and then to invite readers to dismiss people who are actually engaging the issue, is just, well, silly. It devolves to downright hypocrisy if he himself is going to say that anybody's "traits" are an excuse for not engaging the actual points of argument.