It's just one ultrafinitist. I tend to respond to him because I don't find his belief system consistent. However, I don't think classical finitism (accepting the countable/potential infinite) is that bad - it seems to be the only thing one really needs for a mechanist ontology, but I don't mind higher infinities(cardinals, ordinals, non-standard numbers, ...) or useful fictions in the epistemology (they are useful for a lot of scientific and engineering work and in math/meta-math in general, however they also indirectly emerge when talking about finitist systems, even if they may not be needed in any 'objective'/primitive foundation of reality).