Basically, the XOR essay he wrote wasn't at all about Arrington. It was merely a starting point for the real point of the essay--why pg writes the way he does and the reasons for doing so.

However, there are certain things that just set people off--even if it has nothing to do with the main point--and go off on a berserker rant. In this case, people disagreed with the reason pg gave about why people thought Arrington was unfriendly.

So then the question is, does pg's essay still hold up and make sense about the reasons why he writes the way he does, if Arrington was unfriendly for a different reason than what pg gave?

One way to test it is if you replaced the entire section about Arrington with a similar analogy and see if the essay still holds up.

Pg decided to pick one about Parkinson's bike shed color as a nice little meta-commentary about how we are arguing about things that don't matter to the main point of the essay.