I've read some of her articles too, and you're misrepresenting her if you're suggesting that the bodies of her articles are just like her titles. She even wrote an article on how she chooses her titles to maximize attention. She says she feels liberated in choosing a title because she picks the bluntest one she'd shout in a crowded room if she were trying to get people's attention. That's what the internet is, a crowded room. So the choice of titles needn't reflect what you find in the article itself. She makes plenty of straightforward arguments in her articles, so in focusing on her titles, your criticism of that publication is superficial at best.

What's the relevance of some of my negative theses about Christianity and conservatism? Do you understand that the Church no longer has the power of policing people's thoughts? If I criticize something with a negative argument, calling the argument negative hardly suffices as a counterargument. Some things may deserve to be rejected, and you decide whether that's so in any given case by engaging the arguments, not by insinuating that negativity as such ought to be forbidden.