Arch Linux and (the lack of) package signing

I don't think the article is in any way offensive or wrong.
It may be biased because an author not directly related to the story may catch the wrong viewpoint, but that doesn't make it wrong - only out of context when more information is available later.

As it is, even after reading the other side of the story, I don't see anything wrong with it. No impartial person can deny that even if IgnorantGuru may have gone beyond reason, his main point was still valid, and not answered as it should.

P.S. I don't have any reason to think badly of ArchLinux (nor had in the past or will start now). I still think it's an interesting distro, even if I never used it and maybe never will. To me this just means there are times where perfectly fine people just have a bad moment.