What's the point of your response? You say:

"Like hell it's about authorial intent".

Strong! Non-qualified!

Lead sentence:

"It's clearly not just about authorial intent."

Weak... qualified.

That makes it pretty hard to defend myself, as you're trying to pigeon hole me into the standpoint of saying the whole article is only about authorial intent, when that was never my... intent. Can I have it both ways too -- even if I don't want it both ways?

I always forget that we're in a courtrooom, here. In my sentence where I do the little parenthetical aside and say "and here I'm talking about..." I was trying to indicate that my response was referring to those points in the article. Why did I comment on those points, and not the rest of it? Well, for one they caught my attention, because I agree with him that knowing authorial intent would be awesome. But I'm just not sure we can ever truly know what the best translator would be. Frankly, I didn't comment on the other sections because I don't see anything to disagree with, and, as I said, those first few points really snagged my attention.

I always read everything when Nabokov is discussed.