I think the reason that Firefox failed is because of their logo. No, I will not explain, and if you dismiss me without a well-reasoned argument, you're a pretentious mid-wit(?).

edit: ah, "midwit" is a neologism from the intellectual dark web. You're just defending the comment because you agree with it, and pretending it's a question of reason or civility. Who could have guessed?

Those responses are evidence for why it may be wrong. But in isolation they are needlessly terse. Lack of evidence is not the problem, lack of accompanying explanation of why they are evidence, and how they apply, is.

> Though had I known you'd nitpick, I would have said: "Furnish evidence or a solid argument for why he is wrong in addition to it."

And then it would be much clearer, not because I'm nitpicking, but because it's ambiguous otherwise, and open to the interpretation I came to. Since that's not what you intended, it's better to eliminate that misinterpretation.

The bottom line is that clarity is not a matter of intent, but of interpretation by others. At least one person (me) thought you were unclear, and I suspect others did as well. You can complain that they are nitpicking, or accept that you were misinterpreted, and expressing yourself differently might have avoided the problem. Only you can control that, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to blame other people if they aren't being purposefully obtuse (and I promise I'm not).