So you disagree with the article? (You did not include an object in your sentence.) Forgive me if I am slow in understanding you, I have a degree in English. This means I treat ambiguity with caution. Furthermore, I often speak with people who are foreign born. If something is unclear, I reflexively ask for clarification.
Welcome to Free Republic.
>>> Pass the popcorn <<<
Please forgive me. I was writing in a type of shorthand understandable to native English speaking readers. Allow me to clarify, Mr. English Degree.
In the first sentence, the subject, which of course is the author of the article, as well as the linking verb, "to be", are understood. All I wrote was the predicate nominative. Since the verb is not transitive, there is no object.
I would venture to guess that you might be one of a few, if not the only Freeper to read my post and not understand my meaning. So here it is in longhand:
I have analyzed the article, and have found it to be replete with references disparaging our capitalistic system's incompatibility with Gaia, as well as an obvious disdain for the institutions which have raised mankind's standard of living to historically unprecedented heights. I can only conclude that the author is an Earth worshiping anarchist, and a not very original one at that.
I don't know about you, but I think my original post was more pithy.