> I mostly post about free markets, and you had a general complaint about me, which is what I responded to.

As I said, your comment did not come across as a response.

I certainly haven’t noticed that you majority post about free market. A quick sample of your last 20 comments shows 1 low value comment about the free market.

~Half of your Your last ten comments are one-liner comments. Also plenty of opinion, some of which are stated as “facts” by you and could really do with some reference to supporting information. Your last ten comments are: 2x one-liner “facts” on inflation, a one-liner joke, 2 opinions on James Webb, a one-liner on ebooks, a two liner against magazine apps, a comment against government subsidies (with low-value political overtones IMHO), an opinion on Rocky & Android TV, one-liner “The telegraph network was the true origin of the internet”, one-liner “I'm sad that free markets are viewed as an ‘extreme’ position” (you derailed the article topic here).

> I'm curious why you believe free markets are absolute drivel.

rjbwork did NOT say that. You said that. I think that captures a perfect example of a one-liner comment of negative value to the HN community.

“absolute drivel” is inflammatory, but it is only their opinion on the quality of your comments, and I suspect the intention wasn’t to be a personal attack.

> I don't berate others, call them names, call them stupid.

Why introduce that? An implication that we do? I don’t think either of us are suggesting you do those things. I don’t think either of us have done that. We could both choose to be politer, but the risk is a tone of passive-aggressive condescension. Personally I think we are positively engaging with you because we have enough respect for you to do so. My time, your time, and the time of others is extremely valuable (and difficult to own).

> I also like the sport of debate

Let’s imagine there are two forms of debate:

1) the political/lawyer form where the game is to win, any tactic that works is valid, facts are often irrelevant, and competitive behaviours are everything.

2) the scientific/engineering form where the game is a search for answers, discovering one is wrong is fantastic (learning), and cooperation is critical.

I think you say you do (2). However you come across to me as doing (1). I have given you plenty of reasons in this thread backing up why your comments come across as disingenuous.

Sorry that this is a meta-discussion. I really do want to encourage conversation on HN to be curious and positive, and not snarky. I am not a mod (ugggh). I sincerely try to write high quality comments and improve my commenting, not that I am necessarily succeeding ;p. My original comment got 10 upvotes (in a slow thread), so I am not alone with my opinion about your commenting style.

Your comment “I'm completely consistent in what I see as true” is a possible signal that you are dogmatically sticking to your beliefs, and not allowing your beliefs to be changed by learning from others. To quote Jim Keller talking about himself: "Imagine 99% of your thought process is protecting your self-conception, and 98% of that is wrong.” — context @1:23:00 of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nb2tebYAaOA

That is the end of this thread for me. I hope you have gained something from our comments.