First: whether they are facts is questionable: "a lot of guys did exactly" -- do we have some empirical evidence? Second, these so- called "facts" are mostly irrelevant to the content of the argument. This is related to the point I made on the "sensitive guy" thread also. That sort of thing is, what's the phrase from Bitch, ah yes: "poisoning the well of discourse"! Or, to eschew obfuscation ;-), its just bad analysis (based on internal states of persons which have no material impact on the logic of a set of propositions).
Re: orchidaceous -- sorry about that -- I sort of liked it because of the double entendre: orchids (IIRC) imitate/offer certain features to attract certain sympathies, which is the behaviour projected on the fellows under study. At the same time, it also suggests the use of an overly flowery theory where simpler and more appropriate alternatives exist.
--ravi