Decency and halakha (שמוע בין אחיכם) would require you to first ask for my response before publishing your critique. Be that as it may, I think it would be appropriate for you to at least notify your readers that I recanted that post, perhaps even publish what I wrote the next day.
Here is what I wrote:
Paraphrasing Mishna Brachot 1:3.
R. Tarfon said: once, on nittel nacht, I shared a complex idea, trying to push friends and “friends” a little bit beyond their comfort zone, and I was crucified.
His colleagues responded: good for you! You deserved it for you have deviated from normative minhag.
On nittel nacht you play chess, eat Chinese food and watch a silly movie. You don’t use the time to grapple with complex ideas, or share your desire for a more robust religiosity. As the poskim point out, minhag is also the letters of geihenom (in Hebrew). Break a custom and you will end up in purgatory.
Seriously though, while still confused about the vehement reaction, overall it was a rich and meaningful experience. We have created a beautiful virtual yeshivah here, where ideas are debated with passion, nuance, and integrity-but with respect. And, for that I am deeply grateful: מודה אני … ששמתי חלקי מיושבי בית המדרש ולא מיושבי קרנות, אנו עמלים והם עמלים, they fight, and we fight-abut ideas! Yasher koach chaveirim and “chaveirim.”
The moral of the fracas is multifaceted: murderous historical sensitivities are almost impossible to overcome; when the nuance gets too delicate the risk of being misunderstood outweighs the benefit of generating conversation about complex ideas; the more risqué the idea, the more important it is to be precise; and, I am sure many more lessons are to be learned, which will become clear over time.