I think that you're seriously misunderstanding what I'm saying, which is definitely partly my fault. I'm sorry for being unclear.

I present the article as evidence regarding the sign vs gesture issue. You accuse the article of bad faith arguments, claiming it make use of selective information. I ask you if you can provide one single example of something that was excluded from the paper that challenges any of their conclusions. You start screaming.

The nebulous fact that some other linguists have different conclusions is not an example of counter-evidence, that's the vibe-laundering part, but you can provide information from them that is evidence, e.g. if one of them has said something about Indian sign language that is contrary to a claim that the paper makes only with the support of other languages. I didn't mean that you need to be a trained linguist, I meant that you need to engage with the argument rather than use the mere fact of some linguists believing something else as a permission structure to dismiss evidence that challenges your claims. Hence my asking for a "single piece of evidence" for a few messages now, which you hopefully understand isn't asking for fluency or expertise.

Your "interpretation" of this article was to dismiss it as being a bad faith use of evidence. I'm just asking you for evidence, literally any single piece of evidence using any language to challenge literally any single point that the paper makes, because I don't think you have any basis in evidence for challenging their evidence, which the logic of your accusation hinges on.

Reread the bolded parts. Do you have one single piece of evidence to support your accusation?

Edit: I didn't want to complicate this too much because you tend to take one single thing I said and ignore the rest of it, so please make that selection from some part of the above, but I wanted to explain my view of expertise. Specifically, I think that structures of certification are good from a regulatory standpoint, but in terms of two people just having an argument, I think that if it's a field where you actually need to engage with the world, then you can point to the experience you have as evidence, but if it's just having a formal education and writing papers back and forth, there is nothing in there that counts as evidence aside from maybe making a claim about what people write papers about. Theoretical expertise is a good thing to have, but in an argument would need to be exercised rather than just pointed to, e.g. if you're a mathematician, show them the math instead of just saying you're a mathematician (though there's nothing wrong with also saying you are a mathematician). If one can't actually make their theoretical expertise concretely relevant, then functionally it is not relevant.

Obviously none of that is about you because you aren't claiming to be an expert, as you said from the outset, I'm just explaining my own view on the topic because you felt that I was fixating on expertise as a gatekeeping thing. My views are so far opposed to that that many academics would call me a philistine.