I assume your reply was quite clever intentionally. All your arguments seem to be against his typo metaphor, yet you conclude by saying that it is "very convincing".
Sure, I could conclude that your presumed error was done intentionally to further illustrate your point. However you have also included so many other errors (relative to word count) that my own mind threw several exceptions while reading your response. Thus the syntax of your argument against his metaphor actually supports it. So what meaning were you truly trying to convey?
I'm reminded of Paul Atreides thoughts on Harkonnen plotting: "plans within plans".