[nosianu2]

You write

> Let's see some actual research

which I find ironic given that you present your personal opinion about that person as if it were a fact. Maybe we should all start cleaning up in front of our own doors first whenever we feel an urge to not criticize (which would be okay) to bad-mouth other people.

In addition, you also do exactly what the comment you replied to ask you not to, seemingly without having given its content any thought whatsoever.

More, Scott Adams didn't say anything here. You merely read a comment from someone making a claim about what he said, in a short sentence. So you don't even have anything from the person you talk about himself. On top of that that claim would not be worth any severe criticism in the given context. Even if it were shown to be wrong, so what? It does not seem to me like anything substantial hinges on it, even if you took it as just a tongue in cheek kind of comment. Anecdotal evidence from reading online forums and discussions seem to indicate that the described phenomenon indeed exists, how many people are involved and if it's always the same ones or not don't seem to me to be of great importance since no quantitative predictions are involved.

[ForHackernews]

> Even if it were shown to be wrong, so what?

Indeed. Who cares whether anything is true or not when discussing policy on websites with billions of users? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[nosianu2]

Why do you ignore what I actually wrote? Wouldn't discussions be much better if you actually responded to what other people actually say? Given that you want truth, it's quite ironic that you yourself don't seem to be quite flexible.

[ForHackernews]

"If X, then Y"

"X seems pretty bogus."

"Who cares if X is true? Anyway, Y Y Y"

[nosianu2]

That is a malicious and twisted misrepresentation of what I wrote. I actually wrote something about that right in that comment. That is quite the evil discussion style you got there - I'll leave you to it then.