Quoting directly:

> Oh, and BTW, before you completely dismiss the idea that my suggestion might have merit, you might want to look me up.

He wasn't saying "I'm right because I'm me." He was saying, "I'm me so don't assume I'm wrong." It's still an appeal to authority. Had his credentials been part of the first line, where he was confirming that he was serious about his previous post, then your interpretation would be correct.

> Had his credentials been part of the first line, where he was confirming that he was serious about his previous post, then your interpretation would be correct.

Wow, you have quite the exacting standards.

Hey...context matters. When you're talking about your own tendencies (whether you're likely to be serious or joking), who you are matters. When you're supporting your argument it doesn't.

If you call that exacting standards, so be it. I call it reading comprehension.

> Hey...context matters

Indeed it does. So let's recall the context in which I made my original comment:

> Are you seriously suggesting that, widgety though JS's implicit type conversions might be, if its booleans had three values then things would be better?

That seemed to me to be a pretty non-constructive question, essentially a passive-aggressive way of saying, "You can't possibly be serious. You must be a complete newbie dweeb to come up with such a dumb idea."

That's why I responded the way I did.