>Because this isn't twitter, there is no character/word limit so I consider taking a little extra room to help the reader understand where I'm coming from to be a good use of available comms bandwidth.

Similarly stereotypical old people consider it to be a good use of time to tell extremely rambling stories that explain the context of everything. Taking the time to couch everything in "I think" or making
dead sure everyone knows it's "just your opinion" reminds me of Grandpa Simpson explaining that onions were the style at the time - totally inconsequential information.

> Because I prefer to be accurately understood in non-academic contexts too.

Do you really worry that most people misunderstand you without those qualifiers? Are you worried about every possible misinterpretation of your sentences?

> My point is that if it looks like I'm presenting something as fact when that was not my intention then I have failed to communicate properly, and you unnecessarily think I'm full of shit.

Solved by a three word clarification on the off-chance someone misunderstands you. Doesn't happen nearly as often as you think (please don't black swan me).

Opinions can be "full of shit" too. For example, I think people opposed to same-sex marriage are full of shit. You're not really dodging that bullet just by saying "Hey that's just my opinion!!!!"

> Here you make the case for me... Maybe worrying about how I sound in this way is a neurotic issue...

It sounds a little neurotic. It's pretty clear it's just my opinion - people vary in their definition of "tedious".
Some people enjoy knitting, I find it tedious. If I say "knitting is tedious", one can assume that should not be translated as "it is an objective fact that knitting is tedious."

> So to avoid problems with the reliability of my source, I should just not let anyone know what the source is? Basically "trust me, I'm from the Internet, we know these things"?

Depends on the situation. If you're saying the median income in Greece is $32k/yr, then yeah, I want your source. If you're telling me, "Vaccines are bad", it really doesn't matter
what your source is.

Honestly ask yourself (this is rhetorical, by the way, because there's naturally going to be a disconnect between typed and real answers): if a study came out
tomorrow saying "solid proof that children raised by same-sex couples are substantially worse off", would it change your opinion? Would you read it and think "Well, alright, I guess
maybe same-sex couples shouldn't get married"?

> EXACTLY. I don;t see how pointing the that one study is worse than just stating the fact/opinion...

Because you're selectively using sources to deceive people, if it's intentional. It's a really powerful lie of omission.

> incontrovertible truth

What's an incontrovertible truth? Careful we don't side track into an argument about incompleteness.

> the writer either needs to make a little effort to not be misunderstood or accept that some will completely misjudge where they are coming from (and of those two options I generally choose the first, you presumably prefer the latter approach).

My point being that people can always misjudge where you're coming from, no matter what you say. In academic discussions and in didactic discourse, it's important to make sure your audience understands you. HN posts are overwhelmingly persuasive arguments (we're having one now, btw), and you're diluting your message by sounding unsure of yourself.