It is indeed very hard to be civil when one is attacked!
In the post, I tried to be very careful not to make any claims myself, knowing that discussions of data visualization tend towards the tendentious. Instead, I tried to summarize the format of the experiment, and then quoted the paper's results. Maybe I should indeed have stopped after the abstract:
"In this paper, we use the classic comparison of bar graphs and pie charts to test the viability of fNIRS for measuring the impact of a visual design on the brain. Our results demonstrate that we can indeed measure this impact, and furthermore measurements indicate that there are not universal differences in bar graphs and pie charts."
I further reiterate the advice I gave to readers: "I would encourage you to spend as much time understanding what’s interesting about the study as you spend trying to figure out why you can disagree with it"
Next: my attempt to "discredit you" and "undermine your credibility". You seem to be including this post as an example, which I find very strange, since I call you an expert, quote your book, and call your example "compelling" -- and there is no trace of irony.