[psychometry]

I'm amazed you managed to misread a comment that was only two sentences long. The title of the article is--in case you missed that, too--"Could The Ebola Outbreak Spread To Europe Or The U.S.?" The previous comment did not address that question and instead answered a completely different question.

What doesn't add to the conversation is obnoxious pedantry like your comment.

[Throwaway618]

What does add to the conversation, apparently, is continual snide assertions that parent didn't add to the conversation.

(I actually don't have any problem with snide obnoxiousness. "I'm amazed you could [be so incredibly idiotic]" is upfront at least. What I do get tired of is a continual tree, like this one, of "You shouldn't have said that.")

[The_Pherocity]

I do, I hate when I do it. It also doesn't add to the conversation. Especially when I do so on items that are questionable, as this one is. What bothers me most is that the level of snark I use is dependant not on the level of offence, rather the number of times I've encountered this varian of low quality comment during the day. This example, although I stand by it, clearly is not one of the greater offences, and yet has maximum snark. The greater problem is these conversations actually often surpass the quality conversations being had in the thread.