Actually, I think in the hypothetical case it would be fair to write what Mr. Someone is saying off as FUD, and ignore them, unless false negatives are of serious consequence (eg, you're an investor).

Self interest aside, it's such a trollish statement that adds nothing to the real discussion, which is a) what's wrong with product x, and b) what my product y does to fix this. Such behaviour correlates reasonably strongly with incompetence, at least in my experience.

My problem with the grandparent post is more that the question was actually posed by a journalist, which is night and day different. They're sexing up the content to sell a story. So reframing the quote as being from the Clustrix guys is quite dishonest.

Had the quote actually been theirs, I'd have no problem laughing at their expense, although I realise such behaviour is not encouraged here.

Exactly. It's best to assume everyone is biased and judge arguments on their merit and not on who is delivering it.

I've found that these types of comments make for easy karma. The longer, more thoughtful ones make for significantly less.

It would be interesting to analyze, over time, the relative points of the first several "root" comments.