In the case example that you linked, I find it disappointing that you still do not read entire threads. The original article is a Wikipedia article with many authors. The original comment, which critiques either Wikipedia or Baumol & Bowen's original study, includes the summary:
> So - this is simply a bad, ignorant example. It's not just wrong, it's flagrantly, wildly, outrageously misinformed, and is based on an almost total lack of insight into an industry that is worth $146 million a year - of which around $90 million is income from streaming.
My comment concludes with the line:
> This is a bad, ignorant example. Not just wrong, but flagrantly, wildly, outrageously misinformed.
I understand that you object to when we (those who know of the Prime Directive) hold a mirror up to HN. It is embarrassing to imagine how other people must see us, knowing how we see other people. However, that does not mean that we should stop looking at ourselves in the mirror.
Oh, and finally, have a happy Halloween.
I did miss that parent comment, but I don't see how this makes much difference. What you wrote was still a swipe.
On the other hand, I just looked at your recent comment history and am pleased to see a lot of mostly substantive comments there. Thank you for that. If you'd just be careful to take out the swipes (as in the last paragraph of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24813852), the problem would be solved. We'd appreciate that.
p.s. Your etymological claim is incorrect according to Etymonline: https://www.etymonline.com/word/guy#etymonline_v_14401