Not sure what you are getting at, there's no ad hominem involved. Windows commands have noisy output, so people who are only familiar with Windows anticipate that Unix users would have the same problems that they would, which simply isn't the case.
Well, if it's a problem which Windows programers have, then it's not in their imagination, right? But that's nitpicking.
The original article is about Powershell. So I could, for example, say that people who are only familiar with bash (etc.) wouldn't know that Powershell doesn't pipe text, but rather .NET objects. Hence one could go and do something awesome like
... and get all the running processes that take up more than 10MB of physical memory and are neatly sorted by one of the columns. And not even once did I grep.
Your argument is basically that Unix is better, because Unix shells aren't CMD.EXE, which is absolutely true.
Shockingly, Powershell isn't CMD.EXE also.
I may have erred on the exact name of the logical fallacy, but it doesn't mean that there is no fallacy: valid views discarded based on the blind assumption of Unix's infallibility. Feels like it's 1999.
You said parse and pray in bash, don't be a jackass. Similarly, why even say that my argument is that Unix is better because it's not CMD.EXE when you know that's not remotely true, or that I assume Unix's infallibility (ridiculous). You're dishonest and not interested in a real discussion, so continue to enjoy your reinvented Smalltalk machine in peace (there's a reason nobody uses them even though they did more nifty tricks than Powershell ever dreamed of).
How could I be interested in any kind of discussion, when you don't care to see the difference between Unix and Unix shells?
And I don't see how you in anyway progressed the comparison of bash and Powershell with your comment. But go ahead, call me a jackass some more. Maybe that will help?