First, I'm not "concern trolling". Defined as "the action or practice of disingenuously expressing concern about an issue in order to undermine or derail genuine discussion."

How can I prove that to you? I've no idea. But I assure you these concerns are genuine ones. Anyway I've added more cites now. This concern about their fuel sequence was raised by Thomas Stafford, a former NASA astronaut and retired Air Force general, and other veterans of NASA's Gemini, Apollo and space shuttle programs. Sorry not to have given that cite. I've fixed that. On the launch escape system I do say that if you can be sure it is 100% reliable - but launch escape systems are meant never to be used. They aren't a reason for making a rocket with safety issues. There's only been one time a launch escape system was triggered and that was a Soyuz in 1983. With the Space Shuttle, yes it had no launch escape system. But if it had, if they'd found a way to do that, it could have saved the crew of the Challenger. So that rather underlines the need for an effective launch escape system. 

Hope I've made it a bit clearer, that doing innovations of design while working on unmanned rockets is fine - well it's worked well for them. Since the rockets are unmanned of course that doesn't impact on human safety - not until you have humans on board. So it's a case of doing the freeze well in advance of human flight. On the Falcon 9 Block 5, that's an announcement about a future rocket that's not yet flown. First flight towards the end of 2017. So if they fly to the ISS on a Falcon block 5 with the first crewed flight, it's still one of the first flights of the block 5. If the first human flight was say in 2020, then it would be a much more thoroughly tested rocket so long as they keep to that same design for it until then. Whether it is required of them or not, why the rush to send humans so soon? It's not like anyone else is in the running to beat them to it even.

On the quality control - yes they fixed that issue of the strut. But that it happened in the first place shows that they didn't pay attention to a possible failure mode, in that case a problem with a supplier. Is there anything else like that they haven't looked at carefully yet?

We have no idea what the chance is of the rocket failing during fuel loading procedures with crew on board. Theoretically the falcon 9 explosion shouldn't have happened - the probability should have been zero. But they missed something, so in actuality the probability of it happening was surely rather high as after all it happened. You can work out probabilities with known failure modes and knowing the quality of the components and on the assumption that the quoted tolerances etc are exact. You can't do the same though with probabilities for unknown failure modes or failure of the quality control system itself. Do the article again - I raise the same issues with the SLS, especially the idea of launching humans on the first flight of the SLS. I've put a short paragraph of that into the introduction - presumably you didn't read the "Details" section? It's all there. 

And I've also added a sentence near the start, saying "For SpaceX fans, just to say, I'm quite critical in this article but it has an up beat ending. It's not my aim to discourage SpaceX in their human spaceflight ambitions :). Rather the aim is to encourage them to do it safely." which may help.

The main thing is - not just to look at the fun side of things. But to take seriously what it would be like if this fun but dangerous approach leads to a crash. I think it's too easy for fans to get into a mode where they assume it is going to be like the movies where astronauts take tremendous risks but somehow always win out at the end. But this could actually happen, that they all die and I don't think the SpaceX fans are really prepared for that, much as they might think they are.