It would have been if you'd described it as such, rather than misleading about it (deliberately or not).

The context of the rant is clear in the article we all presumptively read.

As I just said, the article itself contradicts the claim you made here. At some length.

How could the article “contradict” my statement when I didn’t say anything about where the rant appeared? I didn’t reproduce the content of the rant either. The article provided both the content and context of her parting rant; my post simply referred back to it.

You seem to be assuming my point somehow turns on Helmuth’a statements appearing in SciAm. It does not. Her words are ipso facto indicative of religious and moral fervor, not rationality.