I think you misunderstand. I didn't downvote you because your comment contained no concrete information. I downvoted you because I couldn't work out what you

I think you misunderstand. I didn't downvote you because your comment contained no concrete information. I downvoted you because I couldn't work out what you were saying, and there was no concrete information (in either interpretation (to me)). Sarcasm doesn't convey well in the written medium, especially when there are multiple cultures in the readership. You complain about an assertion without support, and then you appear (to me) to do the same. It's the "double whammy". If you make a bald assertion without support then - if I care - I'll ask for your reasons and evidence, but I won't downvote for that alone. You said: > I gave a lot more information, expressing my > opinion on why that comment is far from the truth. Not as far as I can tell. You may think you explained, but to me, without your obviously extensive knowledge and experience, you didn't. You say: > I did mention a specific part of both frameworks, That wasn't clear to me at all. If you had said something like: > I disagree - consider component/feature X. It seems > to me that Django is *way* ahead in that regard, and > for some applications that's far more important. ... then you'd've got an instant up-vote for me. Useful, direct and concrete information without confrontation. I hope that makes it clearer. You may disagree with that policy, but it's what I've gravitated to after some years of being here.