1. No. This interpretation of one HN Guideline is not accurate. Such a view would justify being non-charitable, which is incompatible with the guidelines more broadly.

Curious conversation should not stop because you think my comment is off-topic.

2. And as I explained at length in another comment, as conversations evolve in a tree of comments, there may be considerable distance (in terms of a topic vector space) from the root.

3. Each time you say “utter nonsense” or “bogus” (and the like) it comes across as insulting. Are you aware of this?

There are clearer phrases and terms to use that are not insulting. Depending on what you are trying to say, you might try:

- you could say you disagree (in the sense of a value judgment or a subjective matter)

- you could say that I’m making a logical or rational error

- you could say that something is not true, factually

- you could say that particular claim of mine is inconsistent with another claim

- you could say that I am not providing evidence or support for a claim

Onto a different point. You wrote:

> not on completely unrelated nonsense, that you are no expert on anyway (as you professed yourself).

4. Stating that I am not an expert in a particular cognitive science theory does not inherently disqualify the logic of my argument. It merely suggests an openness to learning if there are mistakes. Such an openness is indicative of humility and a tendency to not overreach.

As you can see in my other comments, I have recognized and agreed with some of your points. But these points have not contradicted or disproved what I wrote.