When Leonard Pitts merely addresses an immutable truth, some people think they can contort either his words or contort their own in a failed attempt to refute that which is not refutable.

As with the first comment here, the commenter first tries to impugn Pitt's character, ( a clear case of a thoroughly baseless ad hominem attack),and then follows that with a clueless rehash of exactly the point Pitts already made. Then the commenter follows that with a premise wholly unfounded and offered without any evidentiary basis.