Inconsistences and fallacies

I read this post today, and I was so amazed by the big faults in the author's presentation of his argument, and in how badly reasoned it is, I couldn't leave it without writing a response.

First, the argument introduced in the post is not consistent. For example, in the second paragraph, the author asserts one thing, and then, in the following paragraph, he writes that everything he had written in the previous paragraph is irrelevant. In this way, the author insinuates something, but, if someone calls him up on it, he can say “hey, no, that's not my argumentation, notice that I said that it was not relevant”. It is a quite insidious trick that puts the validity of the whole argument in question.

A big part of the argument consists, furthermore, on rejecting a logical fallacy in the post it's responding to. In the author's opinion, the existence of a single fallacy in the whole argument is enough reason to reject it entirely. However, that's not so. The validity of the argument should not be compromised by a single fallacy if, when that fallacy is removed, the rest of the argument still holds. In my opinion, that's what happens in the original post, so the author of the post I'm replying to is wrong.

Update: someone has written a response to my post.