In an article intent on demolishing arguments advanced by 62 Catholics, mainly lay, about the potentially heretical ambiguities in AL, with a headline which bluntly accuses the signators of lack of good faith, after which there is perhaps no need to continue, M S Winter fairly highlights the dubious canonical standing of "Bishop" Fellay; though, irony of ironies, without mentioning Pope Francis's part in perpetuating said dubiety (sic).

He dismisses the other signators, for their paucity and lack of prominence. 

What was it they said about those handful of men from Galilee? 

I summarise greatly and obviously as I see significant  the rest:
"did not seem to merit response....rhetoric ramped up to an offensive degree...this is small beer...broadside attack on PF....staged attack on the pope...reactionary against modernity...astounding that they criticised PF...D-I-Y Catholicism...not take the bate of answering the dubia.."

My only thought on this refutation is : "Where's the meat?"