I interpreted your comment as meaning that ad hominem (etc) arguments should be seen as in contrast to good arguments. I see it as the opposite. We should expect the use of effective rhetorical techniques and prestigious authors to lead to fame. These are good reasons to expect not to hear of better critiques. [ETA: this is what I was groping towards in my earlier comment]

I read the letter after writing my comment and it is not sweeping, contrary to my claim. Its arguments are pretty reasonable and it doesn't explicitly misrepresent Wilson much. But it is very effective at producing false beliefs, such as my belief that it was sweeping, and TAW's beliefs elsewhere on this thread.