My comment emphasized the need for unions, so if you disagree with my points, are you saying that unions aren't necessary?

I will say, though, that I don't see it as necessary to reply to somebody who ignores the substance of a comment, picks out one sentence, and misinterprets it.

You don't find it necessary, but you felt compelled to anyway? Weird. The problem here is that you haven't even addressed the topic at hand. You went on some tangent that was irrelevant. All I could do was grasp at one small part of your comment that seems like it may have been somewhat relevant to try and salvage the discussion.

I do blame myself for not articulating my point to you, but since you even seem unsure of what I was trying to convey, you'd think you'd ask questions to try and understand instead of just starting to push your own off-topic agenda down my throat.

But I understand how emotionally wrapped up people get in this which prompts them to throw all rational behaviour out the window. I'll forgive you.

I do though, have a great distaste for jacksassery, so you and your faux forgiveness can take a hike. That's yet another rhetorical technique, yet again used poorly.

Either way, deep down, the discussion really doesn't have anything to do with unions at all. I'm not sure if you simply failed to grasp my comment and thought that attacking my character instead of doing the normal human thing of asking for clarification would lead to helping you understand, or if you are simply a troll and did not care about the subject at all and were just looking for someone to take out your aggressions on.

Either way, HN is not the place for that type of behaviour. I'm not sure what you are getting all emotional about if it is not unions, but whatever it is, it is clearly present and causing you to loose sight of thoughtful and meaningful discussion. Dial that back and maybe we can gain something from this exchange. Something tells me that I'll get another several paragraphs of ad hominems instead, sadly.