I didn't have a huge problem with Marty's response. It was actually more measured than I'd expected.
I did find it galling that M&M and the commenters went on and on about how you can't use Hubbard's personality to criticize Scientology, because a person's behavior has nothing to do with the truth of their message -- and then proceed to attack people's ideas by citing their personalities and even appearances.
Rinder:
Jon Atack – not known for either his knowledge of Scientology or his balanced approach to life
Ralph Hilton:
As for Gerry Armstrong, one needs only to look at the degraded state of his personal presentation.
And can we for once and for all bury the "old news" defense? CoS and M&M are equally guilty of using it. "Who cares? It's old and boring, let's move on." Well, so is the fact that Hubbard founded Scientology, that he had a wife named Mary Sue, etc., etc. That doesn't make it any less true, or any less essential for an understanding of the subject. What they really mean when they say this, of course, is, "What you're saying is true but embarrassing, and we would prefer that people stop talking about it."