> Hahaha, is that sarcasm?

No, but your reply to me was dripping with it.

> You really don't realize that your prior comment I was replying too is breaking many of the same HN guidelines you posted?

In what way? It was only a summary of the points that I and two other users further in the same thread had made.

> Do you really think that accusing someone of making "sweeping generalisations" and making no explanation of the accusation is "thoughtful and substantive".

I made a perfectly adequate explanation of why I think such a sweeping generalisation is invalid; that there are Twitter users who aren't complete narcissists. As the person to whom I responded said a couple of comments higher, "there's really a huge conflict when you're saying 'only narcissists use Twitter' in a discussion about how to be kind and productive on the internet.

My contribution to the discussion was originally to support hyperpape's rebuttal of Mizza's claim that not all Twitter users are narcissists. luckylion's comment further supported this same line of thinking as Mizza and I were following, giving further demonstrations of examples of non-narcisisstic Twitter usage.

My summarisation of all three comments, mine, luckylion's, and Mizza's, was that broad sweeping generalisations about a service's users are not helpful. I basically restated everything we had said in a sentence.

The only thing lacking in thoughtful and substantive contribution has been your absolute obsession with that summarisation, seemingly treating it to mean something other than what it is, becoming rude, abrasive, dismissive, and lacking in the sort of courtesy that most HN users would show to one another.

> Were you really responding "to the strongest plausible interpretation" of the person's comment? You were not.

Actually, as I just explained, you'll find that to be exactly what I did. I was merely summarising a few statements into a sentence.

> On the other hand, I actually was doing that with your comment.

I would disagree. From your tone, leading questions, abrasive wording, and insulting language, you have provided no real evidence of this.

Notice how none of those users seem to have any particular grievances about me having summarised our collective thoughts; just you.

None of them have made any leaps of logic like assuming that my perceived disagreement (and I cannot emphasise that enough, because I and the previous three comments, one of which was mine, were in complete agreement) amounted to a defence of "140 character snarky comebacks as the new intellectual standard for humanity" (something neither of the three of us mentioned); just you.

None of them is indirectly insulting me with lines such as "it does not appear like Twitter is doing you or your intellect much of any good", clearly detectable as ad hominem even if you make the subject of that sentence Twitter rather than me directly; just you.

You seem to be picking a fight where none needs to exist.

> Do you see now? Twitter-style discourse is absolved of intellectual rigor and apparently it is also absolved of self-awareness.

Firstly, I was not defending Twitter-style discourse. I will restate this: all I, as the other commenters, was doing was to state that not all Twitter users are narcissistic. I put no money either way about whether or not Twitter-style discourse is effective, defensible, or whatever.

I made no comment about whether Twitter-style discourse necessarily contained any trace of intellectual rigour or self-awareness.

However, I will hold that last paragraph as the best evidence possible of the pot calling the kettle black: you respond to an argument that neither I nor any previous commenters have made, use abusive and insulting language, and then deign to imply that I or my discussion may be lacking in intellectual rigour and/or self-awareness.

All for a misunderstanding.

All of which could have been avoided by you asking me to clarify my position, to determine whether or not I was being antagonistic (I was not), and to do so without resorting to being snarky, without cross-examining, to make the discussion more thoughtful and substantive.

Simply asking me what I meant, rather than laying straight into me with a series of attacks, would have demonstrated those principles.

Instead, you chose to shallowly dismiss the post without electing to understand its position, in doing so failing to respond to what I said with the strongest plausible interpretation by rather attacking an invented one that is easier to criticise.

Your first comment to me even called names, implying idiocy.

None of these things correctly apply to either my comment to which you replied nor the one prior — but I wouldn't put it past anybody to apply them to the two comments you've sent me.