[angoragoats]

> If someone writes a detailed reply, replying ‘no’ is rude.

100% disagree, and that’s not what happened here anyway.

> Straw man arguments are incredibly disrespectful, and most people would do better if they had participated in a high school debating class.

HN is not a formal debate, and even if it were, I’m not sure that what the other poster said is a strawman. My unsolicited advice would be to dial back your expectations of the level of discourse you’ll get from others on this site (I had to do the same, a while back!)

[nailer]

It’s a technical site. It’s reasonable for technical discussions to have professionalism and adult behaviour. Judging by moderation on angoragoats comment it seems that others feel the same way.

[angoragoats]

> It’s reasonable for technical discussions to have professionalism and adult behaviour.

I agree. My point is that I believe the comment you got upset about was in fact not as rude or childish as you’re making it out to be, and perhaps looking at it through that lens would mean you’d come off as less reactionary in the future. Have a good day.

[nailer]

Your comment never provided any supporting arguments so you’re unlikely to convince me or anyone else to expect less from HN.

Your account is also new, so I (and it seems others) don’t think you should be giving advice about how to interact on HN.

Thank you, I will.

[angoragoats]

What if I told you I’ve been on HN since approximately when your account was created? Would that change your opinions at all? (Hint: ideally it shouldn’t, because basing your opinion on the age of my account when you have no other information about me is sloppy argumentation.)

And FWIW, your comments are full of unsupported accusations of logical fallacies and unsupported assertions like “If someone writes a detailed reply, replying ‘no’ is rude,” so I was replying in kind.

[nailer]

> Would that change your opinions at all?

It wouldn't, I'd be saddened that you don't know how to to have a civil discussion with others on a technical site after two decades, but I'd still feel that you should know that.

> unsupported accusations of logical fallacies

There's no point in writing something that can be be disproven by scrolling up the thread. Where I accused the other person of a logical fallacy, I wrote:

"pointing out that other people also share credit for Elon's innovations - my comment never made stated that Elon deserves exclusive credit for this, this is a straw man

You're welcome to acknowledge the error.

> unsupported assertions like “If someone writes a detailed reply, replying ‘no’ is rude,”

All positions are expected to have supporting arguments in a debate with peers. 'No' does not include supporting arguments. You should have learnt this from high school debating, civics etc. as a teenager, of failing that, adult discussion in your workplace, or failing that, participating in technical discussions on sites like HN.

[angoragoats]

> It wouldn't, I'd be saddened that you don't know how to to have a civil discussion with others on a technical site after two decades, but I'd still feel that you should know that.

Are you saying that I've been uncivil in my discussions with you? If so, please do not falsely accuse me of something I didn't do. I've been civil this entire time (and just in case you missed it, I am not @Supermancho, the user who originally replied to your comment). Note that civil/uncivil and blunt/sensitive are two different axes. My posts may have been blunt but they have been civil.

I am loathe to accuse others of logical fallacies, especially since, as I stated previously, this is not a formal debate, but "Your account is also new, so I (and it seems others) don’t think you should be giving advice about how to interact on HN" is the most textbook ad hominem fallacy I've read on the internet in some time.