The above comment attacks Melzer as dishonest for omitting information, and says there's no way Melzer could have simply missed the omitted information.

I repeated the commenter's own words back to them, showing the irony that they (the commenter) were the one who omitted information, in a way that is very difficult to explain if they had read the article. I think that's legitimate.

Please make your legitimate points in ways that don't break the HN guidelines. Personally attacking the person you're replying to isn't part of the legitimate point, and is easy to factor out if you want to. For example, your second paragraph there could be reduced to "the interviewee discusses the very things you're saying he omitted", and to make it more helpful, could have included specifics about where and how he discusses those things.

> in a way that is very difficult to explain if they had read the article

It's easy to explain: people remember completely different things in the articles they read, based on their pre-existing feelings and assumptions—just like we see very different things in the world in general. When your feelings and assumptions aren't the same, it's too easy to jump to conclusions about other people, especially online, where we have so little information to go on, and inevitably make up stories about each other to fill in the blanks. (Not talking about you personally—we all do this.) Because these effects lead to stuck, repetitive, and ultimately nasty discussion, the site guidelines try to mitigate them, and commenters here need to follow those.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Someone writes a long comment accusing the interviewee of intentionally omitting information, and forgets that the interviewee talked about that information at length?

My working hypothesis is that the commenter probably only skimmed the article, if that. But the really unforgivable part is that that incorrect comment was then voted to the top of the thread. It looks like a lot of people are voting before reading the article.

I'll keep within your guidelines, but my intention was just to point out the irony of the commenter falsely accusing the interviewee of doing something that the commenter themselves was doing.