Ray, Ray, Ray.... You've just shot yourself in the foot old friend. Substitute "the Final Solution" for "Ray's Interpretation" and you can see the ridiculousness(?) of your argument. If you disregard "evidence", then any kooky interpretation is just as valid as any other kooky interpretation.
If you categorise an interpretation as kooky, then of course any kooky interpretation is just as valid as any other kooky interpretaion. That's a true statement, as far as it goes. What is there to disagree with there?
However, I don't consider Ken's article to be kooky. It's polemic and rhetorical. I don't consider my interpretation that his article is polemical and rhetorical to be kooky either.
Mrleonard's comment about Ken's title originally being entitled The Final Solution is also not kooky. It's a piece of irony.
But you do have a point, that there must be some
evidence to support a serious statement which purports
to be factual. I happen to have formed a reasonable assessment, from reading some of Ken's equipment tests, in particular his comparisons of the 5D, D3 and D300, that all the points raised by posters objecting to the implications flowing from any literal interpretation of Ken's article, are very clearly understood by Ken and (I would guess) all reasonably intelligent readers.
He's simple trying to be provocative, promote a discussion and a bit of thought on the issue of the excessive concern that many of us have about equipment performance. And it looks as though he has succeed in that intent, with a bit of help from Michael of course. We should not forget Michael's role in this .