[mrphoebs]

While I agree with the points you are making and think they are important, they could have been made just as effectively without resorting to an Ad hominem format. Though the quality of civil discourse on HN has degraded over the years, HN is still the one of the places I expect to live upto a higher standard.

(I'm sorry to any readers that this comment is not adding anything materially useful to the wider discussion)

[ben_w]

Noted. I'm not sure how to make the same points without saying that some of the statements were weasel words, but if you could suggest a different way to make the same points, I'd appreciate it.

(Apart from anything else, I know that raising the other party's heart rate is a terrible way to change their minds).

[mrphoebs]

I think you were half way there taking charitable view on one of the arguments, I think taking a charitable view on the commenter's perspective/intent would have gotten you all the way.

With that adjustment, I think you can go from "weasel words" to "Your perspective might be flawed..."

Apologies, if this comes off as patronising.

[ben_w]

> Apologies, if this comes off as patronising.

Thanks for checking; don't worry, it wasn't.