Related to the article, which is essential to... nothing. As I pointed out, your claim was nowhere to be found in that article.
It was an analogy. I like analogies, but if you'd prefer, I could use a different word. Replace fart with screech, for example.
Retarded (2 times)
Needs to go back to school (2 times in different ways)
Related to the article and the person who wrote the article, respectively.
That's not an insult. It means "contradictory".
Also related to the article.
Okay, that's a nice example of etiquette.
I'll refrain from insulting websites that have nothing to do with your claims if you stop posting links to them and claiming that they do have something to do with your claims. Deal?