Why doesn't James Patrick Holding publicly call D.A. Hagner a moron?

Christian scholar D. A. Hagner obviously doesn't interpret Jesus' legal commands in Matthew 5 in the evasive way that Holding does: 

 40 "If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.
 41 "Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.
 42 "Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you. (Matt. 5:40-42 NAU)

Hagner's commentary clearly disagrees with Holding' hair-splitting bullshit, and shows that it really does mean what it says:

40–41 The second illustration refers to legal action (κριθῆναι, “to be judged,” i.e., in a court), the result of which could be the loss of one’s χιτών (“tunic” or “inner garment”). Jesus teaches not only that one should give up what one is sued for but that one should also voluntarily give up one’s ἱμάτιον (the more essential “outer garment,” i.e., robe or cloak) as well. Cf. 1 Cor 6:7 for Paul’s similar attitude. Along the same lines, in the third illustration, when one is pressed into service by the military authorities to assist in bearing a load (this is the meaning of the semi-technical term ἀγγαρεύειν; cf. its use in 27:32), one should not simply go the required mile but an extra one too. Thus, these unjustifiable requests should be complied with—indeed, the response should considerably exceed the requests. Again the perspective of the kingdom of God is alien to the perspective of the world.
...Jesus again expounds the ethics of the kingdom. What he presents is ethics directed more to conduct at the personal, rather than the societal, level. These directives are for the recipients of the kingdom, not for governmental legislation. Rather than demanding strict justice, or allowing for retaliation of any kind, the disciple of the kingdom defers to others. The disciple does not insist on personal rights. Furthermore, the true disciple does more than is expected. He or she is free from society’s low standards of expectation, being subject only to the will of the Father. The conduct of the disciple is filled with surprise for those who experience it. This element of surprise relates closely to and reflects the grace that is central to the gospel. It is the unworthy who have experienced the good things of the kingdom; and as they have experienced the surprise of unexpected grace, so they act in a similar manner toward the undeserving among them (cf. Luke 6:34–35). Jesus himself provides the supreme example of the fulfillment of this ethic (cf. passion narratives and 1 Pet 2:23), and the disciples are called to follow in his path. Kingdom ethics demands not mechanical compliance to rules but a lifestyle governed by the free grace of God.

cf. confer, compare

Hagner, D. A. (2002). Vol. 33A: Word Biblical Commentary : Matthew 1-13.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 131). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

 How can Holding insist that somebody he considers an atheist with zero significant bible knowledge (myself) a "moron" for adopting Hagner's interpretation, and yet the same Holding doesn't call Hagner himself a "moron"?

Logically, isn't it the person who has the far greater knowledge of gospel truth (Hagner) who has less excuse for misinterpreting this part of the gospel?