It's easy for a simple bot to refer to his own previous questions. Not much harder to refer to something the other side said too. So the only thing that remains seems to be claim that the reply of the other side has some sense.
His commentary about the previous question included analysis of the other side's answer (that it was not only wrong, but evasive and obviously computer generated), so I think that remains a valid point. I don't see Goostman providing similar analysis.
It was already shown that attacking the other side (even claiming that this other is the computer) is a good bot practice. So even there Scott can't obviously score. Analysis it ain't, is just "it's the first sensitive thing you say" and "it's the second sensitive thing you say." You, as the human involved in chatting with bots and humans in parallel, would have to evaluate the probability that the particular statement is actually only sensitive thing etc. Without the hindsight and knowing that offensive behavior is very bot-like, it's harder than you imagine.
A lot of human behaviors online can in fact be replaced by scripts. There's even a T-shirt:
