I've seen such used before (though with italics to help the eye find the breaks), when a comment makes too many points or is too complex to reply to without making it clear which part of the comment is relevant to which part of a reply.
Is there a better way to format conversations on HN when comments reach this level of branching complexity?
A long back-and-forth of quote and rebuttal though is definitely not the style here. That style makes sense in Email and Usenet, because you're often using readers that don't show the parent comment at the same time or in a thread. It makes very little sense here, where we're essentially reading the same comment twice.
For standard/default conversations, I agree that it doesn't make sense (as is the case with many standard situations). But for non-standard situations, sometimes non-standard approaches are more suited.
Anyway, there is nothing in the site guidelines defining "the style here," as you call it. Are you the sole repository of the style here, or are there others?
Counterpoint (with the quote for irony): I find that in politicized discussions like this one, when I want to jump in to correct something, it is horrifyingly common to find that the original comment has been editted to sneak around the point I wrote. The quotes act as protection against bad faith discussion.
a) You do not know what I know
b) I would say that I am not on "rhetorical ice" at all - rather, I am combating rhetoric with precise, non-rhetorical ideas
> and also kind of outside the norms of our community
This is my very complaint. It may be true that I am "outside of the norms (Overton Window) of the community", but have I violated the HN guidelines? Is strict epistemology (disciplined adherence to that which is actually true) a formal violation of explicit community rules, or an undocumented, culturally imposed one?
> when you start quoting the dictionary as a rebuttal.
Adherence to formal, broadly accepted definitions of words (upon which someone else's argument is based) is improper behavior?
> The person you're debating told you what they meant; what they meant is no longer a part of the debate.
How does one know what portions of reality are acceptable to discuss, and which ones shall not be discussed? I see nothing in the guidelines. And I would strongly disagree to objections based on "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." It is a fine guideline, but when it starts being used as a wildcard to suppress true ideas, the discussion of which may not to be some people's liking, I think that crosses an important line.
> Second, it is very much out of the norms of HN to do email-style alternating quote/response the way you are. It's also very difficult to read on this site.
Certain forms of communication (precise, non-narrative) lend themselves to different writing styles.
Do you have any objections that are based on the actual content of the ideas I have written? Or might your objection be not to the ideas themselves, but that I am stating them out loud?
Does it matter to anyone what is actually True any longer, or have we mass adopted a culture of "the ends justifies the means" to managing and discussing the affairs of the world? Should bad ideas be fought with better ideas, or with censorship (formal, or informal) and pretending they do not exist?
Based on how I see events unfolding in the world, now seems like an opportune time to be discussing just what exactly we humans are actually up to on this planet (as opposed to what we like to tell ourselves we are up to), from a more philosophical/abstract perspective - this facilitates the ability to rise above the repetitive loop of object-level "he said, she said" conversations, and ascend to a level of more thoughtful, less combative/partisan communication and sense making - at least in theory. Are we formally opposed to that level of conversation, is that "outside the norms of our community" - or not? This is not my decision to make, I am only asking the question.
> Does it matter to anyone what is actually True any longer, or have we mass adopted a culture of "the ends justifies the means" to managing and discussing the affairs of the world? Should bad ideas be fought with better ideas, or with censorship (formal, or informal) and pretending they do not exist?
And I believe this is your end goal:
> the abilty ... to ascend to a level of more thoughtful, less combative/partisan communication and sense making
Is that a fair set of summary quotations?
Second, it is very much out of the norms of HN to do email-style alternating quote/response the way you are. It's also very difficult to read on this site. Try just writing paragraphs? We can all read the comment you're replying to; we don't need to read it twice.