I assume that "rubbish" or "bullshit" refer to what the other person said, so when you expand that paraphrase it turns out like this:
"What you said is rubbish. I don't agree with you and here is a list of reasons why."
Now, can you tell me what value there is in the "What you said is rubbish" part? Let's go one step further: what do you lose by omitting that part?
Mind, I'm just as sick as the next guy of the whole "we must never be negative", politically correct thought police that has been taking politeness to unrecognizable and unreasonable extremes. Sometimes there are good reasons to be aggressive or less than polite, but "sometimes" is not the same as "always" or "most of the time" or "as often as I feel like it".
Sure, there are many ways the OP could have phrased his response.
Personally, I don't think the approach use to attack someone else's point of view is that important, provided the attack is aimed at the message and not the messenger.
In this case I don't think the OP said anything about the messenger.
I agree with you: "rubbish" is the same as "bullshit". It's still saying "what you've said is worthless".
I don't have a problem with it, but it is the same semantics as what started this whole issue - though he does expand into a list of reasons (which isn't possible on twitter).
For what it's worth, I think most of the commentors are reading far too much into "this is an eye-bleeding script*.
I've seen people hurt by having what they've said called 'bullshit' by someone they respect; it's capable of emotional harm as well. That being said, let's not walk on eggshells.
So to paraphrase the OP I read him as saying:
Rubbish, I don't agree with you and here is a list of reasons why?