I don’t follow. The link supports the claim that interest rates should be above inflation when the latter is above target.

The implication is that because this rule is from 1992 (which I guess is considered ancient history), arguing that it should be implied here is essentially saying that central banking was solved in 1992. It's a bad argument.

But it’s a bad reply too. It just means the rule is from 1992. That gives us no way to gauge whether the rule was invalidated in the intervening times.

As I like to say, we launch spacecraft based on models of celestial mechanics from the 1680s. Doesn’t make them wrong or disaster-prone. If you replied to someone that “oh you think celestial mechanics was perfected in the 1680s?”, then a lay reader should be equally confused as to why they should doubt the person you replied to.

If you have a reason some rule is invalid, post it, FFS. Don’t just say it’s from $YEAR. And definitely don’t rely on ambiguity as a way to look smart and unquestionable.

But of course, he’s a longtime poster, so I guess he gets a free pass.

I understood it as rhetorical question.

Then it's a poor use of the technique, since the parent of that comment never implied otherwise, and doesn't provide enough to extract what the argument actually is. However much or little we have or haven't "solved central banking", the comment I replied to was linking textbook knowledge that agreed with its parent. So any substantive disagreement there is unclear -- hence my comment.