[bduerst]

>This feels like a no true scotsman.

It's not though.

Appealing to effeciency is not an appeal to purity, which is what a no-true scotsman is.

A no true scotsman in this regard would be more along the lines of redefining advertising to not include any activities that OP described, i.e. OP wasn't doing true advertising. GP is not doing that here, because GP is acknowledging that OP is doing advertising, but doing it poorly.

[tomrod]

It felt like one because the original comment puts anyone who doesn't willingly support advertising claims as not knowing how advertising works. The classification creates a false dichotomy whose classification is "only a group that does not know advertising would do X."

These are hallmarks of a no-true scotsman.

[yen223]

I like that this comment has no-true-scotsman'd the idea of no-true scotsman.