> You're both misinterpreting the entire purpose of the post. I explain this in later replies to this thread. My post was quite short, only 391 words, and not even intended to make an argument. You're expecting way too much here. You need to think about why an author writes an article and who the article was written for. If you think an author is completely flopping on their face, perhaps you just misunderstood what the author was trying to do.

Jeff, I don't think you can impose on HN commenters what parts of your post they're allowed to engage with. Your intention might just have been to provide an example of something that (you think) supports a point that (you think) is already proven. But people aren't required to accept your priors when discussing your post, particularly when they're doing so off on some third-party forum.

Perhaps people are misunderstanding you... or perhaps they understand you perfectly well and disagree with you, and want to talk about that disagreement.