You are the one ranting about how something you disagree with is bad, actually. (The only uses of "evil" have been by you, except for venomsnake discussing cen

You are the one ranting about how something you disagree with is bad, actually. (The only uses of "evil" have been by you, except for venomsnake discussing censorship.) Your comments have been much more nasty, dismissive, vitriolic, and over-the-top than those of venomsnake. I tried a little experiment: I supposed that venomsnake commented in good faith, and isn't crazy. I could not find disconfirmation. In his/her first sentence, there's a proposal that there are some virtues to MS's approach, and that dethroning those virtues might not be an unalloyed good. In the second sentence, there's an observation that the new regime has substantial drawbacks (for some people's values, including many HN readers). The third sentence is a bit hyperbolic, true, but the fourth sums up fairly even-handedly by calling the victory pyrrhic (which does still mean victory, btw). What's the problem? On the other hand, your first sentence is nothing but vitriol, your last sentence is nothing but vitriol, and you allocate time in the middle to a sarcastic "I'm so sorry", and to misrepresenting venomsnake's comment (about "open" and "backwards-compatible"), just so you can call it "stupid". All in all, not very nice. And venomsnake replied to you with far more politeness than you deserved, and for that you called him-or-her a zealot. I totally missed the bit where you're "preaching tolerance", sorry if that's thick of me. Could you point it out?