Attack the argument, not the person.
The post you made comes off, to me, as an attack on Dave Winer - the person - not a disagreement with a point he made in his article. There just isn't any need for personal attacks here. If you disagree with the point he was getting at, you could have said so, and made your argument for why you disagree, without attacking Dave personally.
So what?
I generally respect and understand what you're saying, but this is a unique case.
I don't see anything unique about this, that justifies personal attacks on anybody (Dave Winer or otherwise). I mean, I get that you see Dave's post as constituting an attack of sorts on Marissa, and that you think playing the vengeance card here is supported. But not everybody saw what he wrote as particularly negative towards Marissa, and many (most) of us got that the real point he was making was contained at the very end of the original post, and were quite content to argue that point.
There's just no need for using HN comments to launch some sort of personal vendetta against Dave Winer (or anybody else) over something in a blog post.
If you have some sort of personal grudge against the man, email him and challenge him to a pistol duel at high-noon, or something. But calling him names, insulting him, mocking his name, etc. on here isn't a positive for anybody.
Your mileage varies, obviously.
I disagree. I worked as a magazine editor for many years and I was a little shocked at the end, because the "real point" seemed like a sudden left turn out of nowhere. In my opinion his piece would have been more compelling if he'd left out the Marissa Mayer grievance bit and simply used the other story, the one of his post-acquisition realization that his contract naming him the Mac Strategy Guy didn't actually mean anyone would listen to him.
As written the "real point" was obscured. And I see the same pattern in his response post: Relating some story about being misunderstood and unappreciated followed by a face-saving rationale about a larger point. The intellectual points aren't about him, but the illustrative examples all scream "Can you believe these fools wouldn't listen to me?"
In the case of Mayer in particular it seemed a case of exhuming the horse skeleton to give it the proper public thrashing it deserved. I mean, he had one phone-conference with her a decade back and he can now see into her soul and know "At the core she cares not one bit what the users of Tumblr think"? Seriously?