I have no problem with discussing whether the translation is accurate or not, in fact I welcome it. It's the idea that a sentence constructed as it was in English is intrinsically wrong, which was the meat of what was being discussed, which is in dispute. That's two different issues. Going beyond what is meant literally, we should always be aware that there are nuances in Japanese that are can't be properly conveyed by a straight up translation, and that's where editorial freedom comes in. Pretty much true for all languages.
Not that I'm disputing that aspect (or anyone that I'm aware of), and I'm not disputing that it could have a more appropriate straightforward translation (which again isn't in dispute)... what was being disputed was that merely having "So" two times in the title just made it a English error outright, also the insinuation that both times it was used it conveyed the same meaning, so one could substitute the other (it doesn't).
And now I feel like shit for overusing "dispute".