You might want to mention the fact that I never redirected anyone attempting to access the standards support summary page like he claims.
For about one day, my summary page detected visitors coming from his site and added a little clarification:
The article you have just come from states that Internet Explorer has better support for the XHTML 1.1 changes than Firefox. It should be noted that although Internet Explorer does support some of the relevant elements, it does not support them in any fashion in which it is correct to use those elements. Internet Explorer only supports the elements as proprietary extensions to HTML. True XHTML 1.1 must be sent with the content type "application/xhtml+xml" or a generic XML content type, which Internet Explorer does not recognize as a webpage without the application of special hacks.
This was simply added on to the standards support summary page. No one was "redirected" anywhere. And furthermore, a day after I did this, I decided it was pretty silly to show this message only to people coming from his page, so I made a couple minor changes and put it up as part of the page for everyone. At this point, people coming from his page got the exact same thing everyone else got, and it was after this that he added the notice to his page and changed the link.
I only made the notice on my page because I was still trying to figure out the best way to present that information in the tables themselves. I eventually did so and took down the notice. Now my tables say exactly the same information that he's calling biased, even though it comes straight from the W3C specifications and no one has attempted to say the tables are wrong there.
Also, he presented that "Do I dislike Internet Explorer? Yes." quote in a pretty out-of-context and misleading way. In the original conversation, he was basically saying that I'm biased against Internet Explorer and therefore my articles must be full of lies and nonsense. As a web developer, yes, Internet Explorer is a royal pain in the neck, and even the Internet Explorer developers have come out and admitted that at least in regard to IE6 (lead program manager Chris Wilson referred to the "bang-your-head-on-the-desk bugs" that plagued IE6).
But of course Andrew left out the important part of that paragraph: "Do I intentionally lie to get people to switch? No." Just because I have my own beliefs doesn't mean that I'm trying to fulfill an anti-IE agenda with all of my articles. I'm a web developer and I'm trying to help make web developers' lives easier by providing them with accurate information. In my articles, I try to present as accurate a picture of the situation as I can. Obviously my "Internet Explorer is Dangerous" page is going to show Internet Explorer in a relatively bad light, but only where I can demonstrate through facts and statistics that it deserves to be, and I don't try to hide where other browser share IE's shortcomings (If someone got their bank account wiped clean through a Firefox or Opera bug, I'd mention it, but so far it has only happened with Internet Explorer). My browser support pages, on the other hand, are designed to be as accurate a reference as possible with no agenda to favor any browser over any other. My own version of Firefox Myths is designed to address the various claims and talk about all sides of them, where they are true, where they are partly true, and where they are false, rather than just cherry-picking the information that supports a personal agenda like Andrew K. does.