As per the comment to which I was replying.

I think these attempts at redefining meritocracy are concerning, and I don't blame anyone for questioning the Contributor Covenant as a result, even if the Code of Conduct itself is reasonable and pretty much common sense.

Your direct reply to DC-3 was fine, if combative. Everything you posted below Ws32ok is ugly.

It's not useful to repeat that those words are not in the kernel code of conduct when nobody thought they were. It muddies the waters of the conversation. What really bothers me is the statement that it has "nothing to do with" the philosophy. From a certain point of view this is true, but the implied message is that the other person has not even a ghost of an argument because they're mixing up codes. That implication isn't right at all. He's also implying that he doesn't even know what this document is.

But before he made any of those comments, he made a reasonable reply to DC-3 that addresses the argument. His response was very simple, that the code should be treated as separate from its author.

So he clearly understands the argument and read the post explaining what this manifesto is and why it's being discussed.

But he comes in under Ws32ok's comment not to point out the difference between the two documents, but to instead imply that people are confused and accidentally opened the wrong file, and he's never even heard of this file.

I find that ugly.