Perhaps, having studied Scott's article and having accused Martin of running scared due to its game-changing revelations, you might like to use excerpts from Scott's article which lend support to your position, as Martin has done.
I find it irregular that you are willing to criticise Martin's position and yet offer no substance to support your own (well, Scott's, to be precise.)
As you point out, Scott will not be around for a while "being understandably busy", so I ask you in his absence and as his self-appointed spokesperson to enlighten us via reference to the content of his article.
I see no obfuscation or conflation in Martin's post.
What am I missing?