> The horse of Aynrandianism was long ago beaten to death Apparently not. As for the mediocre discussion, fine. > You really had to swoop to cherry-pick that

> The horse of Aynrandianism was long ago beaten to death Apparently not. As for the mediocre discussion, fine. > You really had to swoop to cherry-pick that detail, which could hardly be less prominent. Fair enough. I suppose I'm used to being rewarded for reading the entire article. > The topic here, obviously, was the author's business. Off-topic comments that are whimsical and unpredictable are fine on HN; but going off topic in order to grouch about something, or turn to some generic issue, lowers the curiosity level and is not fine. Fair enough. Message received. However, I feel compelled to comment that it seems like a potentially worrisome policy. If all controversial topics are avoided unless they are the primary subject of the submission, it seems like it potentially exposes the community to an insidious legitimization of unsavory beliefs. I suppose that's your concern and not mine. I'll stick to the main topic of the article in the future, and minimize the kinds of objections we've discussed to the subtext of my comments, if they're included at all.