[yellowapple]

That point about cognitive biases wasn't really relevant, though. Writing off someone's (clearly well-thought-out) opinion as some run-of-the-mill "back in my day" remark also happens to possess bountiful opportunities for improved conduct.

Happy to take part in undoing downvotes, though, while we're on the topic of HN metadiscussions. Or is defending one's own arguments/positions out of line on HN these days?

[Kalium]

For my own part, I mark a difference between fairly defending one's position and what we witnessed above. That was:

* Poorly formed. It has no clear central thesis and could have been reduced to and improved by a handful of relevant links.

* Lacking in charity. The comment in question did not have to be read as a personal attack, as others demonstrate.

* Egotistical. Your typical user does not check the CV of every commenter they engage with. This is not a reasonable expectation. Very few commenters are particularly notable people, and this user does not appear to be a noted agronomist whose opinion could be reasonably regarded as authoritative.

All of these combine in my eyes to create a comment worth discussing as poor in the hopes of improving the contributor's behavior. They clearly have good information to share. We would all be better off if that was what took place.

I agree with you that the comment that received this response is also far from ideal. I think it is reflexively glib, but perhaps without rising to the level of meriting a call-out. I recognize that this is a judgement call on which reasonable people might disagree.

[vram22]

Just to have fun (as you probably thought you were having with me, even if subconsciously), I'm reviewing a few of your points "in the hopes of improving the contributor" (presumptuous and prissy!), as you said about me:

Poor command or at least poor usage of language, even though guessing English is your native tongue:

Minion, one does not say:

>a comment worth discussing as poor

Instead, one says something like:

A poor comment.

Or even:

I did not like that comment.

KISS!

>They clearly have good information to share. We would all be better off if that was what took place.

Ahhh. The vain and unwarranted use of the royal "we". Sadly, "we" can see that "thee" have (or is it "thou hast", I don't care, ha ha) aspirations of greatness beyond thy abilities, as said in a sibling or nephew/whatever comment, varlet :)

Also, how doth thou know that they have good information to share, if thou implieth (above) that such did not take place?

Har de har har.

<Guffaws some more. Exeunt right.>