FFS. OK, I can ride at 5 mph. It's difficult to ride at less than that, as it gets hard to balance. So if I needed a lower gear than 29", I'd walk.
Is that better?
I’m sorry that you clearly found being challenged on what you’d written irritating, but there’s a serious point at issue, and that serious point is that you are giving bad advice, because what works for you is probably not the best solution for the majority of cyclists and (more importantly) potential cyclists.
If you prefer to limit yourself to a 29” bottom gear, and when the hill gets steeper either push harder or get off and walk, then all power to your elbow - everyone should be encouraged to enjoy cycling in whatever way works best for them. But in that spirit, I reckon the majority of the great British public would find hills less offputting if they had lower gears. They usually never get to discover that option, however, because the world of cycling is dominated by sports-derived thinking promulgated by fairly fit and keen cyclists who think that what works best for them should be good for everyone.