I didn't think it was perfectly clear, especially in the context of saying that Mr. Stallman doesn't understand or accept it. I can conjecture what I think people mean when they say this and what argument they are making and why they think Mr. Stallman doesn't agree with them, but how do I argue with my conception of someone else's conception of what Mr. Stallman believes without attacking a strawman?

I thought it was far better to challenge the phrase and ask what it means. If someone replies and says "There's trade-off between convenience and privacy," we can have a chat about false dichotomies or whether the convenience is for telcos or for users, and so on. Or maybe they explain something else, and I might discover something unexpected.

You could have just as easily written:

I think the trade-off between convenience and privacy is a false dichotomy.

And waited for a response or a correction. Or if you wanted to check first:

When you say privacy/convenience continuum, do you mean the trade-off between convenience and privacy?

Or if you didn't want to hazard a guess:

What do you mean when you say privacy/convenience continuum?

Any of which would have been far more gracious than what you actually said.

I didn't pretend to entertain the possibility of a citation, he (or you) could easily reply "It's the same thing as this thing or that thing, just different words." I still entertain this possibility.

If you want to say I was ungracious in replying to an incredibly terse statement, I do not disagree. But dishonesty doesn't enter into asking someone what they mean by a phrase that I haven't seen before--and which doesn't have Google hits--and asking for a citation.

Terse? Yes. Ungracious? Sure, why not. Dishonest? I don't think so.

EDIT: But still, thanks for the feedback. I like where you're coming from about graciousness.