I suppose we all have an A2K modus operandum. Mine is characterized (I believe) by a leaning towards certain texts which interest me, and I am aware my writing can seem "dense" to those unfamiliar with the territory.
Joe seems to enjoy the devil's advocate position and he has an exemplary grasp of conventional logic. Unfortunately this is an insufficient basis alone to tackle some of the current ideas which fly in the face of convention. He seems to be unwilling to tackle such ideas with an open mind and therefore tends to resort to the "disarmament" tactics you have spotted which can be as puerile as pointing out spelling mistakes. His usage of terms like "gobbledegook" are simply an indication that he has not done the background reading for whatever reason that might be. Minor research yelds that Peat is renowned in the communications field and is writing within an established paradigm.
Well, I think Peat is working on some interesting stuff.
But I wouldn't claim to be qualified to verify it. I have very little experience with numbers. My interest lies in the abstract ideas and their implications on other abstract ideas.
Also, I find the many similarities to historical thinking stimulating.