Your logical point is well-taken.
In addition, I notice that Fresco's original post is a classical example of what the philosopher Daniel Dennett calls "a deepity". (Fresco did invite philosophical objections, didn't he?) As the Rational Wiki explains
, "[t]he term [deepity] refers to a statement that is apparently profound but actually asserts a triviality on one level and something meaningless on another. Generally, a deepity has (at least) two meanings: one that is true but trivial, and another that sounds profound, but is essentially false or meaningless and would be "earth-shattering" if true. "
Consider, then, the statement that "facts are transient and decay over time like radioactive substances do". If construed as conventional English, this is false --- but it would
be profound if true. If construed as Fresco's Constructivist-Philosophish, the statement is true, but trivial. Facts are defined as whatever people agree on; what people agree on changes over time; therefore, facts are transient. Big deal. So what?
So Fresco has created a deepity. Now he wants to sell it to us as a profound philosophical insight, and is annoyed that we're not buying. My sympathy is limited.