Hey, I figure the downvotes were probably a consequence of tone, but your quoted post is a robust defense of your prior assertion about your position on vaccines.

(in all honesty, I clicked the post a few times and wondered why you were linking it, but it only clicked after mike drew attention to it.)

Anyway, I apologize for doubting. I still don't understand your position regarding the current batch of mRNA vaccines, but I can appreciate that you're not an anti-vaccine generalist.

It's very amusing you were actually able to show yourself laughing at anti-vaxers right here on HN, thus winning the argument against eganist completely. You should probably have called that out more clearly. I guessed what might be in the link but it would have been good to quote it.

> It's very amusing you were actually able to show yourself laughing at anti-vaxers right here on HN, thus winning the argument against eganist completely. You should probably have called that out more clearly. I guessed what might be in the link but it would have been good to quote it.

My guess is that what drew so much ire was the tone and presentation. Similar to "thus winning the argument against eganist completely" when it was less of an argument and more of an immune response to common patterns that proved in this case to be a false positive.

But yes, simply going with quoting the past post, drawing attention to it very clearly in text ("Please see linked one example of a past post where I've declared my own pro-vaccine views"), and then using that past position to contextualize their current aversion would've been great for constructive engagement.

Water under the bridge. Either way, sorry trhway; glad you're not anti-vax, but hoping to win you over to the mRNA side (though feel free to laugh at me on my way to the grave if I die of vaccine induced long term effects. I guess I'll have earned it at that point).