When I saw you'd replied here, I excitedly checked https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10218108 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10218108 to see if you'd a

When I saw you'd replied here, I excitedly checked https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10218108 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10218108 to see if you'd also given saurik a reply. Alas, no. You choose to reply here stating you believe OP agrees with your assumptions, while ignoring more detailed replies to your position. For my part, I think that if OP agreed with you he wouldn't have done it. This whole thing reminds me of a discussion I once had about doctors who perform abortions... Some people find it very hard to understand the other side doesn't agree that life begins at conception, and wrongly conclude abortion doctors must believe they're committing murder. It's always easier to brush other positions off as too verbose, or too anonymous, or too whatever. It's much harder (but much more valuable) to consider the problem and data at length, and come to a new truth. This is what differentiates science from the tinkering which proceeded it. > Is this CERN-level proof? No, but I don't think it's necessary here. We're on a forum, discussing another forum post. This is what I was talking about when I said "it matters to me that HackerNews remain a place for intelligent discussion" above -- to me HN isn't just some online forum; the standards we should hold ourselves to are much higher. We're here to learn and relate. If you'd acted this way on reddit I wouldn't have taken issue... but on HN it pains me to see this kind of behavior. The other side of your holy war is not inherently immoral.