If the refutation had merit why not put it through proper peer review as the paper it attacks was? Why should the debunker be held to a lower standard than the person he is debunking?
The peer review didn't catch all the errors in the paper, did it?
And you're still moving goalposts around. If I was the skeptical sort, I'd wonder if an honest discussion was your intent.
I see. So the lack of peer review means no errors were found in the rebuttal ergo the rebuttal is right. What a rapier like intellect I am dealing with ere.