Rebuttal to a Comment on a Reply

Anonymous strikes again with a comment on my reply. And I quote: "That's a sad little angry reply. Does this mean you think Starbucks drinkers are Nazis for indulging in their coffee? Why such a rant? it's the same as any chain of anything these days. You need to get laid and chill out".
Let's review this one point at a time:
"That's a sad little angry reply"- I see, my unhappiness about a situation is sad.
What makes my opinion about something any less valid than anyone else's? Why can't a man in a free country express anger over something? I don't know where you live, but in Canada people have the right to freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication. This is also a first amendment right in the United States.
"Does this mean you think Starbucks drinkers are Nazis for indulging in their coffee?"- Apparently our anonymous friend had trouble with the statement from my reply: "NOTE: THIS IS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO COMPARE STARBUCKS TO NAZIS. TO DO SO WOULD BE AN INSULT TO THE MILLIONS WHO WERE AFFECTED IN WWII. I AM JUST MAKING THE POINT THAT EXPERIENCE IS NOT NEEDED TO MAKE A MORAL JUDGMENT". Admittedly I never included Starbucks customers in this statement, as I thought that would be redundant. Let me reiterate: in no way do I want to compare anyone to Nazis. The only people that should ever be called Nazis are those who were Nazis. These people are all old or dead. I am sure that they neither are executive officers, shareholders, customers, or in any other way associated with the Starbucks corporation. Clear?
"Why such a rant?" Because I can. It is my right. I feel strongly this way and I have a medium in which to publish my message. Conversely it is your right to read and reject said opinions. I know that it is very unlikely that I can convince you of my way of thinking, but if you have at least thought about things, than that is a good thing.
"it's the same as any chain of anything these days"- I'm not saying that the Starbucks corporation is the only "bad" company out there. However I do feel that Starbucks embodies all that is wrong with globalization. I refer you to John Raulston Saul's excellent book "The Collapse of Globalism and the Reinvention of the World" . (2005, Penguin Publishing: Toronto). Also, I am aware of the irony of the last link to Amazon.com, and the fact that this blog is being hosted on a site owned by Google.
"You need to get laid and chill out"- OK, I probably deserve that after my rebuttals 9 and 10. Nevertheless, this statement adds nothing to the debate, and lets face it, the monkey is cute.
I do want to say Mr. or Ms. Anonymous, that just because we don't see eye to eye doesn't mean that I think you're a horrible person, everyone is entitled to an opinion. Also I'd like to say that our little on-line "debate" has been fun, and I look forward to the next installment. Since you don't provide even a made up name to use, in the interim I shall call you Dr. Emily Jacobs, using the most popular boy's and girl's names from 2004 in the USA. I just think that Dr. fits well before a name like "Emily Jacobs".