"Saying that the logo is just a small part of the overall identity is really dumb."
His point is that it makes no sense to evaluate a logo on it's own without greater context of how it fits with a fuller identity.
"saying that the general public is unqualified to comment on it is even dumber."
Why? Doing an identity is hard work and it requires more thought than just looking at a screen, evaluating it against something which it isn't even replacing, and then making a gut reaction. I wouldn't be surprised if most people went into the discussion with a bias introduction ("checkout this ugly logo!") without any rationale.
"if 90% of people don't like it, it is by definition a bad logo."
His point is that it makes no sense to evaluate a logo on it's own without greater context of how it fits with a fuller identity.
"saying that the general public is unqualified to comment on it is even dumber."
Why? Doing an identity is hard work and it requires more thought than just looking at a screen, evaluating it against something which it isn't even replacing, and then making a gut reaction. I wouldn't be surprised if most people went into the discussion with a bias introduction ("checkout this ugly logo!") without any rationale.
"if 90% of people don't like it, it is by definition a bad logo."
Well that depends on their taste.