Obnoxious reviewers, obnoxious author

I am working on improving a manuscript that I just got back from review. Here's a few nuggets with my replies (no, they won't be sent as is to the reviewers):

the impact on what? This sentence reflects much of the paper. It is difficult to see what we are talking about in the first place.

Are you serious? It says right there in the preceding sentence that we are talking about adaptation!

Sentence wrong. Drift is irrelevant to the fact that a mutation is deleterious.

Review wrong. We aren't talking about drift, but random death.

Epistasis is not defined per mutation

Yes, we define it per mutation. You're welcome.

This is wild speculation

Or just speculation. Heed it.

I should say that the reviewers did make several reasonable points as well. It wasn't all "I'm too lazy to read your ms carefully, and you didn't cite my 1947 paper, so I hate you" kind of comments.