Sure it's a slur. A slur is objective. It doesn't matter if you felt nice and friendly when you said it. What matters is what it says. It suggests your opponent's arguments are flawed because he doesn't read Scripture, which is an attack by innuendo on his character, and which would be manifestly contrary to the totality of evidence from his posting history, that he is an avid student of Scripture. He is simply drawing different conclusions than you from the same text.
But rather than address the "why" behind that difference, you choose non-factual insult. Why would you do that? Perhaps here we have a true case of Schopenhauer's Argumentum Ad Personam, because I can see no useful attachment this has to the flow of argument. It's just shooting the messenger.
I'm disappointed in you, AA.
Dan spent a lot of energy (and a lot of virtual paper) to explain away verses which literal meaning is Catholic. The explanation does not hold: between the two discourses on the Eucharist, in John 6 and in 1 Cor. 11, and the Last Supper episode allegory cannot be argued. That he does while proclaiming himself a believer in Sola Scriptura. You don’t think irony is out of place here?