But instead of saying Gavin was responding to an argument that blocksize has to remain small forever for the sake of inefficient miners (as he framed it) you could have accurately said that he was responding to an argument that blocksize has to remain small forever for the sake of security and decentralization.
See the difference? It's subtle, but that's how manipulation usually is.
If current block size limit means greater decentralization and therefore greater security, that means the smallest possible block size (enough to fit just one transaction) means maximum decentralization and therefore maximum security. So proponents of a block size limit must logically also be in favor of a one-transaction-per-block limit. Not to mention absurdly high transaction fees. Ad hominems against Gavin might be fun to use as arguments, but they are not effective.