So I think there may be some equivocation of the term "interpretation" in this thread--whether intentional or not--but I understand the point being made here.

So I think there may be some equivocation of the term "interpretation" in this thread--whether intentional or not--but I understand the point being made here. My point is that when one determines that a fact is notable, there is an underlying reason for making that determination, whether it involves several "competing interpretations" or not. It is perfectly reasonable to ask for that underlying reason so I can assess the validity of the statement. If someone refuses to give it, as we've seen here, then its reasonable to dismiss their assertion. I'm not responsible for justifying their own argument for them. As for the 'only on HN' remark, I think that was unnecessary. At any rate, this will be my last comment on the subject.