Ironically, my grammar in that section is awful. What I mean to say is that reducing essays to their errors isn't my intent; that I may disagree with a piece but when I do so, I don't resort to petty arguments about technical details to shore up my dissent.
If I disagree with an article I'll have a reason and talk about it. If all I have to say about an article is that it has 3 incorrect semicolons, I'm not doing so to derail the discussion but because frankly the rest of the article is lackluster enough that the semicolons are the most interesting thing about it.
You can be beautifully grammatically correct and precisely boring (see lawyers docs). Or you could tell a story compelling enough that no one minds its minor imperfections. Them's the breaks as I see it.