It has the same root comment, so that feels like the same thread to me. Either way, it means you're clinging to a technicality to be right. So then what's your

It has the same root comment, so that feels like the same thread to me. Either way, it means you're clinging to a technicality to be right. So then what's your substantive point? You claimed no one is mad, no one made a particular argument in location A. Someone made it in location B. So what great misconception did you think you were refuting? It seems that all your comment does is tell people to ignore an argument that's actually being made ... on the basis that it's not being made in one specific arbitrary boundary. It's also kind of funny -- even if you restrict it to this "thread", under your cherry-picked definition of "thread," you claimed no one in this thread is mad ... a few sentences before you expressed contempt for what Dow did. >Dow doesn't get credit for doing the preferable thing, because there's no evidence that it's what they intended to do. All available evidence suggests that Dow intended to do a worse thing, and someone saw a business opportunity within Dow's apathy. If you really want to dig your heels in, I'd love the lecture on the difference between contempt, derision, and anger. (Edit: it's even worse ... your own comment is one of the ones angry over lying. [1] But right, it's in other thread, so in your mind, it doesn't count.) May I suggest a better path: accept that the argument exists and use your deep understanding to refute it rather than to convince others it doesn't exist. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34940149 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34940149