zlacker

You dismissed the article and author by labeling it a 'hit piece' by 'someone who hates wikipedia'. When other users asked if you had any substantive critiques of the claims in the article, you responded by saying you don't need to read or respond to the article's claims because of the 'bullshit asymmetry principle' that you adhere to.

The next natural question that I asked is how you arrived at the conclusion that the article/author is heavily biased (or filled with 'bullshit' as you have stated)? You respond by implying what I was asking is 'bullshit', and you don't need to answer any questions about it.

Overall, this thread/tangent has not been constructive. I was responding to your ad hominem on the author and shallow dismissal (which is against HN guidelines) of the article with no supporting arguments/remarks/evidence. Yes, my tone was more direct, as I'm not a fan of shallow dismissals based on ad hominem attacks. Probably my mistake for even engaging given the content of the comments that were posted to others.

Like you have stated a number of times here, you don't need to read/respond to anything you don't want to and you don't owe anybody anything. For future reference, this is just an implied rule in life, and doesn't need to be explicitly stated. Feel free to ignore this comment as you have stated you will, and I definitely don't expect/want anything else out of this conversation.

>>FFRefr+(OP)
> You dismissed the article and author by labeling it a 'hit piece' by 'someone who hates wikipedia'.

Both of which are factual.

> The next natural question that I asked

You didn't just ask the next "natural" question. You were snarky, made accusatory questions, and broke HN rules.

> You respond by implying what I was asking is 'bullshit', and you don't need to answer any questions about it.

You left out the part where I said don't owe you the answers to your accusatory style questions. Which is the crux of the problem.

> For future reference, this is just an implied rule in life, and doesn't need to be explicitly stated.

Thanks for the advice. Here it is again explicitly stated because I'll continue to use my style of communication:

I don't have any obligation to reply to heavily biased "journalism" or the cross-examining style questions you used.

> I was responding to your ad hominem on the author and shallow dismissal (which is against HN guidelines)

It was ad hominem, but of the useful kind. It was not a shallow dismissal because I gave a solid reason folks should ignore his writing on that specific subject. That's the opposite of a shallow dismissal. All of my comments got a lot of up-votes. People here clearly found my observations useful. And my defense of my observations useful.

In contrast to comments similar to yours which got flagged.

> Feel free to ignore this comment as you have stated you will

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I never said I'll ignore any future comment you make. I said something different. Which anyone can re-read and make up their own mind about.