For example "I was hit by Penguin, that proves your theory is completely baseless".
And interestingly, no one ever said it. That's the second time you've twisted my words. If my arguments are so poor, why can't you defeat what I actually said? Why resort to creating a straw man you think you can beat?
What I said was that fixing my exit rate situation was met with a Penguin slap, so if your theory was correct, then it would be important to figure out of there are ways of improving the exit rate that might cause Penguin to conclude you're spamming, since it's pretty clear (particularly for the many sites who have "no manual penalty" emails from Google but still suffered from Penguin) that Penguin is not just about backlinks. It's looking at something on-page, and I'm still not sure what.
That doesn't disprove your theory, and I never said it did. It just suggests that merely improving your exit rate numbers may not be the solution to good standing with Google overall. And that's what we're after, isn't it?