[tptacek]

This is an artfully written comment, the way it peppers paragraphs of opinion with factoids that make it look authoritative but don't in fact back any of the points up. "From 1945 to 2008..." perks up "people believed in corporations" groan.

It's a hall of mirrors. You look closely and suddenly "the right wing" is "The Tea Party", and "The Tea Party" is "anti-corporate", or "In 1999, if you said the world was run by evil people [...] you'd be seen as a bitter loser". But worse than the occasional verifiably false premise is the fact that the whole comment is slippery, written deliberately to avoid being pinned down and interrogated.

[jarek]

Ah yes, and here we have the "tptacek shitting on a comment using big words and smart-sounding phrases" comment. ;)

[tptacek]

Which of the words I used were "big"?

You're right: I'm definitely pooping on the comment. Can't claim the high ground there at all.

[jarek]

I'll respond as I myself hate when people leave me hanging after I respond to their snark... "factoid" (arguably used incorrectly), "authoritative", "verifiably false premise".

It could be written more simply. You're not wrong, of course, but I've seen you take-down posts like that a couple of times now, so a comment seemed fair. (I realize it's not far off from how you normally write, but the effect is different in a take-down post.) IMHO of course.

[tptacek]

No, thank you. This is where I do all of my writing, and I appreciate the feedback. One of my coworkers once made a word cloud of all my HN comments, and it was embarrassing (a small galaxy of words relating to argumentativeness) and ever since, I've worried that my lazier writing is easy to spot for how puffy and prolix it is.

Though, for what it's worth: I used "factoid" in the sense of "concept related as a fact that probably isn't a fact".

It was really nice of you to take the time to write that. Thanks again.

[jarek]

No problem. I'm sure I wouldn't be thrilled with my own HN comment word cloud...