I was asking a question, not making a claim. Though I obviously made it clear what I think the answer likely is, I'm genuinely interested in the thoughts others can contribute. I'm not sure what the snarky response contributes, though.

I'm just illustrating that you're doing the same thing you're advocating against, so it's rather self-defeating. If this sort of vague, personal thinking is OK, then your post is pointless. If it's not, then your post is bad. Either way, it doesn't make any sense.

There's a deep difference between a conversation inviting disagreement and those with solid evidence to step in, and a strident claim that will only be addressed and corrected by people who are willing to be confrontational.

I agree, but how is that relevant? I only see the first kind here.

Go back and take a gander at the question mark in the comment you're criticizing, and the lack of one in the comment I'm addressing.

Are you thinking I said your comment is a strident claim that requires confrontation to disagree with? I said the opposite: both your comment and the one you originally replied to are conversational and easily amenable to contrary views.

No, the other way I could disagree. I thought the first one was the closed-off claim.

I gathered as much, but I don't see it. With the explicit disclaimer that it's just personal observation, it's about as open as can be to me.

Fair enough. We're making different judgments. And it occurs to me that there might be another important distinction there: I was bringing up a question of value judgment, whereas the commenter I was responding to wasaking a claim about the actual frequency of a phenomenon.