1) already debunked
2) He said the review process is nonsensical and hostile. Not that the requirements are nonsensical and absurd.
3) already debunked
4) "None of these files are commented or documented." Well true, and while that could have lead the review to the right conclusion, there is no requirement on commenting or documenting the code, so the point is irrelevant.
5) Well if there is a photo of a beach and they say "this picture contains violence", how do you say where specifically they are wrong if they don't elaborate themselves? The reviewers should have basic understanding of the code, not just "ohh, this file is called google something something, must be tracking". Yeah he could have stated that these are to deal with Google tracking, but he should not have had to.
6. Well there is also not machine-generatednor concatenated code either.
I don't know what kind of email exchange there was, and how frequent this kind of behavior from Mozilla has been. The developer could have done some things a bit differently for this to go more smoothly, but to restate, the point is that he really should not have had to. Also, Mozilla could have started by asking for more information, not by making bogus claims. In the current state, if I were Mozilla, I would try very hard to not alienate developers.
Term, holidays, term, holidays, till we leave school, and then work, work, work till we die. -- C.S. Lewis