>In your post, are you claiming there's a shadowy group of people who at the same time are both unknowledgeable but also conspiring to hide their own knowledge?
No, I think my post was clear on what I meant despite my mistake: that people are too quick to blame e-ink the company for malice without understanding the technical challenges around industrialization of such technology and the economic factors of the e-ink-like products market (profit margins, supply/demand) that drive competition and investments, or lack thereof, in this tech.
Also, I have no reason to apologies to the commenter as he did not provide any evidence to support his claims that "e-ink is evil" in order for his integrity to be affected, to warrant an apology for my counter-arguments, nor do I think the original commenter is petty enough to be offended by my honest mistake, which I rectified later.
to me, that counts as a reason to apologize
> Sorry, I'm not a native English speaker. "disingenuous " was the wrong word in that context. I meant to use it as a synonym for "unfair" and made a mistake.
This particular mistake (assuming disingenuous means a little less than it does) is not particularly uncommon among native english speakers (or on HN, at that).
FWIW:
> you called them a liar who was pretending to be stupid
The "pretending to be stupid" is not an essential part of the definition above (merely "typically by").
Finally, Merriam-Webster offers up other definitions:
lacking in candor
giving a false appearance of simple frankness
These don't fit particularly with the strident definition you're using.
English words are complex, with contextual and flexible meanings. You've picked one definition. And then you've attacked someone's integrity on the basis of it, which is exactly what you're arguing has been done to someone else. Don't be this guy.
You're on the right track, though; it's worth asking if the people criticizing patents and their stranglehold on innovation are not being candid or sincere in doing so. (The answer IMO is "no, they're being very candid and sincere, in stark contrast to most defenders of contemporary patent law", but it's nonetheless the more relevant question).
For clarification -- disingenuous is defined as:
> not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does
In your post, are you claiming there's a shadowy group of people who at the same time are both unknowledgeable but also conspiring to hide their own knowledge?