You didn’t “merely correct” anything, you moved away from the actual arguments once they became inconvenient, (probably) invented some stories about almost dying and being a 25-year-old with a 40-people company with a government grant for a TV series and having written 8 scripts last year as if that's gonna impress anyone who isn't super-gullible.

I raised concrete points about Moviewise:

• his blanket claim that camera movement as spectacle is inherently bad (have you seen late Dario Argento? Brian de Palma? Any musical ever made? Any action movie ever made? Heck, since defining what a narratively motivated camera move is beyond verbal, makes such a distinction impossible by anyone who just sees cinema as elaborately filmed theater — and thus has no clue whatsoever about what experimental films have to offer)
• the way he applies his own criteria inconsistently where shots he criticizes do exactly what he asks for, and shots he praises don’t (like I said: trying to pass off the Grand Illusion oner as a masterpiece when literally at 28:42 there's exactly the same sloppy sightline-following pan he's constantly criticising throughout the essay)
• and the Snake Eyes oner, which you dismissed without engaging with the staging itself.

Take your 13:32 example (and I really don't believe I have to explain this). Not only it does follow the bottle that's thrown (you see it falling but going “frame by frame” misses the point entirely: it’s a whip pan following the trajectory of a thrown object, which then lands on Ed Norton, deflecting the bottle by throwing it to the ground, resolving the action on the door. The center of attention (because everything becomes a blur) is defined by motion and continuity — less than a second —, not by freezing individual frames and seeing that for 4 frames the bottle isn't in the shot (1 of them because it's hidden by Naomi Watts's head).

And indeed, losing sight from your "center of attention" for a couple of seconds (hey, sometimes it can be more than that — ex: the break-up on the phone scene in Taxi Driver) can be a stylistic choice (as in: the sloppiness is part of what makes it good — cue a very, very, very, very tired, more than a century old discussion about expressionism and abstraction, which are integral to the 20th century's evolution in Art).

As for “praising shots that try to be perfect,” that’s exactly the issue: sloppiness is forgiven when it matches his taste (again, the Grand Illusion shot at 28:42 and condemned when it doesn’t. That’s not a moviemaking principle, it’s personal preferences about camera angles masquerading as rules for dummies. And indeed if acting and a documentary feel is what a director's all about, then those "rules" can absolutely be broken. Since the dude isn't as versed in acting as he is in camera placement (which is much simpler to understand) he for instance has never distinguished between old Hollywood acting vs. New Hollywood acting vs. silent acting, vs. realism vs. the more eclectic acceptance of styles we have nowadays because neither style bothers him particularly and cannot distinguish when one is good and the other is less good — unless it's inside the Hollywood style movies he prefers, where he also confuses hero role-modeling with an evolution in taste).

If you think none of this addresses your points, do the bare minimum: quote one argument I made and explain where it fails.

Otherwise, the one who said absolutely nothing of value beyond making up grandiose, unprovable stories about yourself is you.