You are as unpleasant as you are incorrect.
Yes, surely tone-policing proves that I was incorrect.
I will simply note that you completely ignored everything I wrote, and instead regurgitated the same points you made last time.
I ignored what you wrote because the Arneson lawsuit issue isn't germane to the topic. I regurgitated nothing: in fact, I pointed out a few clear cases of things Moldvay got from Holmes. What did AD&D get from Holmes? (Other than a plug, I mean?)