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.