You may not be trying to be hostile, however below are the direct bullet points you make in your post.

Can you read how these would be used as descriptors to ones aversion to Facebook WITHOUT being considered "hostile" evaluations. Not to mention they are UTTER assumptions on your part as to _WHY_ someone is against Facebook.

* inventory of our own self-limiting beliefs [1]

* bitterness [2]

* narcissism [3]

* unmasks us and our conflicts with the world [4]

* impressive dance of culpability evasion [5]

* the deactivation button is a secret transcendental portal into social nirvana [5]

* a personal battle we are merely losing against ourselves [6]

---

So, if I am against FB, I am 'afraid of my own limitations' (assumption is that this is in contrast to FB's 'greatness'? _in your opinion?_)

---

[1] & [2]: Am I automatically "bitter"? Why? Is it due to points [1] & [2] above? (I think these two points may allude to your youthful? perception that FB is "killing it" and therefore awesome just due to their scale.)

---

[3]: Why am I narcissistic if I eschew the posting of my life to a 1 billion strong shared "HEY LOOK AT ME!" site?

---

[4]: Ill give you this - I have many "conflicts with the world" -- but, Facebook has 0 role in forming these opinions Aside fro mthe fact that it is now proven they are culpable, to use your words, in the spying on the US for the NSA.

---

[5]: This is an interesting one. I'd really like to have a discussion about this one. First of all, the word "culpability" means; To have a hand in... in as much as my being "Tax Cattle" provided the funding for the efforts of various activities of the USG, or my being an "online set of eyeballs to be targeted by Google/Yahoo/Inktomi/Whomever-thefuck... then yes - I am culpable.

However, your use of this term is laying the balme on the users for FBs actions. Seriously - What are you trying to imply.

You are stating that "those who complain about FB being a crappy service to sign up for, are the same people CULPABLE for the service being crappy"

This is a ridiculous claim.

---

[6]: If [5] couldn't be any worse. Now you've just accused anyone of being against FB as being some zealot who is seeking their transcendental hipster orgasm by being against FB - completely ad hominem... this is your arrogance in you're own argument. You think you are above those who claim to not like FB - that you're accusing them as the effective equivalent of "Holy warriors seeking salvation through their denouncement of FB."

---

[6]: I AM SUCH A SYCOPHANT TO FB, I CANNOT EVEN CONTAIN IT:

Lets analyse what you said:

"a personal battle we are merely losing against ourselves"

OK; so assume I am against facebook and I vocalize that sentiment. What you, Danneu, are stating is that I am in a personal battle, which I am losing against "ourselves".

I can only believe that you mean a battle against "those who accept FB to be a completely normal, natural evolution of "us" - whereby; if, I am against it, then "I am fighting myself" because how else would I not want to have [whatever facebook/is want(s)]"

You are really saying that "resistance is futile" -- and that is lame. I wrote about this here on HN almost two years ago, you are the reason why the following could be true: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4237959