I think many people would have loved to see a response by Moldbug, and found his response disappointing. My guess is that Moldbug felt that his writings already answered a lot of Scott's objections, or that Scott's approach wasn't fair. And Moldbug isn't the same thing as neoreaction; there were other responses by neoreactionaries to Scott's FAQ.

The FAQ nails neoreaction on a lot of object-related issues, and it has some good philosophical objections. But it doesn't do a good job of showing the object-related issues that neoreaction got right, and it doesn't quite do justice to some ideas, like The Cathedral and demotism. And the North Korea stuff has really easy to anticipate objections from neoreactionaries (like the fact that it was lead by communists).

The FAQ answers the question "what are a bunch of objections to neoreaction?", but it doesn't answer the question "how good a philosophy is neoreaction?" because it only makes a small dent. If you consider the FAQ in conjunction with Neoreactionary Philosophy in an Enormous, Planet-sized Nutshell, then you would get a better sense of the big picture of neoreaction, but he doesn't really integrate his arguments across the two essays, which causes an unfortunately misleading impression.

The FAQ put me off getting into neoreaction for a while, but when I did, I was much more impressed than I expected. The only way to get a good sense of what it actually is would be spending a lot of time with it.