I wish I had also copied the copypasta criticism of my paper because the context of OP pic related could be clearer if I had it. However, I've seen the same thing copied into my threads on many occasions.

The main point was that the critic was saying that my definitions in Section 2 were "vague and meaningless" which is just stupid and wrong, and that what I did in my paper does not agree with "all standard textbooks." The latter criticism is especially stupid because my paper does agree with the most standard analysis textbook of all time: Euclid's Elements. It is also stupid because what I did in my paper was to show that the stuff appearing in the modern textbooks, stuff which was thought to be equivalent to the previous textbook written by Euclid, was not equivalent after all. This was an error omn the part of those who formulated the modern approach, but the author of the copypasta I was responding to acts like the modern stuff was intended to contradict Euclid and replace him. That is WRONG! It was an accident that the modern stuff is not a direct encapsulation of Euclid. Although it was never the intention to contradict Euclid with the modern stuff, the main result of my paper is that I show that the modern stuff does contradict Euclid. The pseudo-critic completely ignores my result which shows that the modern stuff is not equivalent to Euclid, and then he says that it is a problem that my stuff is not equivalent to the modern stuff. He never mentions that it was NEVER the intention of the modern stuff to contradict Euclid, and that the agreement of my stuff with Euclid makes it better than the modern stuff which inadvertently contradicts Euclid's, and then contradicts my stuff directly through that prior inadvertent contradiction.