I read through the entire response looking for a single counterargument, and there wasn’t one! Most of it is him complaining about how you miss historical context, but he never says what the historical context you’re missing actually is, or how it undermines your argument. He just says you need to read more continental philosophy, and if you do, you will understand Ellie Anderson’s argument, which you supposedly misunderstand. It’s the worst version of the courtier’s reply.

And then there’s his weird disdain for MIT. He keeps bringing up the fact that you’re from MIT as if that’s a response to your arguments and complaining about how horrible MIT’s philosophy department supposedly is.

He also mentions that Anderson was trying to provide a genealogy of clarity as if this is something you missed, when in reality, this was clear, and the problem is that, as you pointed out in your post, her genealogy was wrong, pinning the concept on the correspondence theory of truth when that’s not actually why analytic philosophers believe in clarity, or a requirement for thise who believe in it.