You seem really fixated on the logic here, and I'm feeling bored and unbelievably petty, so let's break it all down.
Logical structure of your original post, in your voice:
A.P0: If existing editors behave poorly toward new editors, it will drive new editors away.
A.P1: Existing editors are behaving poorly toward new editors, based on my anecdotal supporting evidence.
A.C: Existing editors are driving away new editors with their poor behaviour.
Logical structure of my reply, in my voice:
B.P0: Existing editors behave poorly toward newcomers in certain domains such as common knowledge and pop culture.
B.P1: Existing editors don't behave poorly toward newcomers in domains such as creation of new technical articles, based on my anecdotal supporting evidence.
B.P2: Many HN readers have the capability to write new technical articles.
B.C: HN readers will not experience poor behaviour from existing editors if they use their knowledge to write new technical articles.
Logical structure of first reply, in your voice:
C.P0: It is possible you are implying I am unwilling/incapable of writing quality researched Wikipedia articles.
C.P1: If you were not implying C.P0, then your reply does not logically follow (ed. note: probably meant "address" rather than "logically follow") from conclusion A.C.
Logical structure of my reply, in my voice:
(clarifying restatement of previous)
Logical structure of your second reply, in your voice:
E.P0: Since you did not explicitly assuage my concerns in C.P0, my concerns are valid.
E.P1: If my C.P0 concerns were valid, that constitutes a personal attack.
E.P2: Personal attacks are unacceptable on HN.
E.C: Your reply to me was unacceptable.
Now that we have a nice pseudo-logical representation of our conversation, I hope all ambiguity is cleared up. Anyway, your propositions C.P1 and E.P0 are both incorrect.