For what it's worth: the story is likely to be true. That bit is my own opinion, of course, but it's a reasonably informed opinion.
I seem upset with you responding to an idea that wasn't actually in a comment. Conflating the ideas of the author of a piece you disagree with, and the poster you initially replied to, is wrong, plain and simple. It's intellectually dishonest and doesn't belong on a forum like HN. You should know better -- you're ostensibly a power user around here. That's why I asked about the trolling, because this is pretty obviously that. 'zelon88 claimed the autistic man in question was a 'genius', you then attacked the idea that the US was embarassed by the hacks, which 'zelon88 didn't claim. It's very simple.
>But so long as the part we choose to address isn't taken out of context or inconsistent somehow with the rest of the comment, responding to the entirety of someone else's comment is unnecessary --- in fact, it's unproductive, if you don't have much to say about it
Are you seriously trying to claim that grabbing a single word out of a comment, fixating on it, and then continuing by attacking an idea not present in the comment is somehow not "out of context or inconsistent somehow with the rest of the comment"?!
So, in case this wasn't clear to you:
I object to the notion that the person who said "he's a genius" and the person who said "these hacks embarassed the US" are the same person when they're obviously, verifiably not. I've linked both posts ('zelon88's and your initial reply) several times now! Is it that you don't care?
You're not fooling me; yet you are replying. Perhaps you're fooling yourself? If this doesn't clear things up, then it surely must be trolling. Since you opened the comment above this one with an intentional misrepresentation of my argument (and the rest of the comment flowed from there), it's gotta be trolling.
I think you and I talking more is unlikely to be productive.
Eh, my goal has been reached. Your unbelievable perspective has been fully elaborated; several non-me comments clutter our discussion, each confused by your intransigence. For whatever reason (I'm guessing an ignorance defense, so's you can continue to troll in this way elsewhen), you're unable to accept or realize that a comment that puts words in another's mouth is not OK, and that you have done this. I can't put it any more simply than that. I'm sorry. I hope you get it someday.
You seem upset that I didn't address the entirety of someone else's comment, but instead only part of it. But so long as the part we choose to address isn't taken out of context or inconsistent somehow with the rest of the comment, responding to the entirety of someone else's comment is unnecessary --- in fact, it's unproductive, if you don't have much to say about it.
So, in case this wasn't clear to you:
I object to the notion that the person we're talking to is a "genius", and to the idea that society is losing the potential of a genius because it's punishing him for breaking into government websites.
You are free to disagree with me and to make a case for his genius. You won't, because you don't disagree with me. But you're unhappy that I chose to bring this up; that's clear. I'm not interested. Move on? Or find some way to object to what I said that is actually coherent and productive; that would work too.