[jancsika]

I've got a template that I think will solve this kind of cross-talk. Here it goes:

What follows is an institutional critique.

Some content goes here, preferably with citations.

This concludes the institutional critique.

Once the header and footer is in place, the reader is not allowed to make counterarguments based on anecdata or moral speculation about the personal responsibility of the institution's participants.

HN users are perfectly capable of making these distinctions. I'm sure if I post a paper about timing attacks that leverage subnormals, nobody would complain that HTML5 users need to better educate themselves on IEEE 754.

Now that I write that, I'm not so sure-- so please always use the template above when making an institutional critique.