I actually really like the ideology that the GM calls the shots. It shortens arguments. If I disagree with something as a player, I make an appeal instead of a drawn out argument, then I have the choice of either accepting a decision or leaving the roleplay. As a GM, this means I have to put up with a lot less arguing and people going BUT I HAVE RIGHTS! Instead of giving me reasons why they should have X. Most GM's are decent people and open to player input. There's a few bad eggs out there, but most of them love their own game and understand that they need players who want to be a part of it. So if you phrase your stuff right and aren't a jerk about it, you'll find you actually get a lot of what you want most of the time. tl;dr Less shit, same result.

That doesn't mean GM's are infallible, by the way, but it's important to treat them and their content with respect, even if they make a mistake. You want the same from them, I'm sure. I mean I don't know how you handled it personally, but I can tell you that the least effective way for anyone to call me on 'my bullshit' is by causing a riot doing it. Then you'd be ruining something constructive by putting it in a disruptive package. I'd have to deal with neutralising the disruptive to stabilise the OOC, before dealing with the constructive, by which time I'll not unlikely want to crush someone's skull with my bare hands and that may be a time where I'm kinda biased in my judgement with the instigator. 

Better ways to approach this tend to be "Hey man, great post. I just wanna say noticed X, which is in contrast with Y I posted earlier. Think we can work it out?" And if you want to be really, really safe do it by PM instead of post.