First, you assumptively respond as if 'DannyBee doesn't have any data, because you dispute the provenance of his data. But there's a difference between "I agree with the validity of your data" and "you knowingly are arguing without evidence".

Then, you pointlessly barb him about the selectivity of his memory.

Finally, you deploy the classic message-board-jerk "nice work" rhetoric, which exists solely in order to inform the person you're talking to that you don't respect what they're writing.

That's a lot of rudeness to pack into such a lightweight comment.

A writer with exactly the same information trying to persuade people of the exact same position could accomplish what you've accomplished so far with just the words:

"I don't agree with you".

There's nothing pointless or "barbing" (another word attempting to rhetorically paint my position) about my selective memory comment. I simply do not believe he talked to 200 people who all said SF sucked in the past. I truly think that he's leaving out people who believe otherwise.

And it's not a controversial or "rude" opinion to say anecdotes are not data.

Another person I read religious is 'dang, whose comments are the informal moderator log of HN.

And why I'm saying this to you is, pretty much everyone that gets called out for incivility on HN deploys the argument you just did: "my incivility was justified by the comment that preceded it".

I'm not persuaded.

You asked!

So here we are. :-)

Truth be told, I kinda see that to my advantage, since I like to think it lets me see truths others miss when they're expressed in an uncivil manner.

Anyway, the other reason I know your id is that you're working to transform the very broken world of tech hiring, and I most sincerely wish you the best there.