[mikeash]

I'm just illustrating that you're doing the same thing you're advocating against, so it's rather self-defeating. If this sort of vague, personal thinking is OK, then your post is pointless. If it's not, then your post is bad. Either way, it doesn't make any sense.

[GavinMcG]

There's a deep difference between a conversation inviting disagreement and those with solid evidence to step in, and a strident claim that will only be addressed and corrected by people who are willing to be confrontational.

[mikeash]

I agree, but how is that relevant? I only see the first kind here.

[GavinMcG]

Go back and take a gander at the question mark in the comment you're criticizing, and the lack of one in the comment I'm addressing.

[mikeash]

Are you thinking I said your comment is a strident claim that requires confrontation to disagree with? I said the opposite: both your comment and the one you originally replied to are conversational and easily amenable to contrary views.

[GavinMcG]

No, the other way I could disagree. I thought the first one was the closed-off claim.

[mikeash]

I gathered as much, but I don't see it. With the explicit disclaimer that it's just personal observation, it's about as open as can be to me.