Going by what you wrote, you were replying to this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38524906
You didn't say a single word about the next two comments in the chain. So I don't see how they act as context.
> Yeah, I did figure it out. But we're not Humpty Dumptys here, so we don't get to redefine words on a whim.
> In short: that's what he meant, but that's not what "public" means.
It's close enough.
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."
The strongest plausible interpretation is that you would use a different word than "public", but it's a pointless quibble. Not "How **** do you have to be", "You're not as clever".
Those insults are wildly unfitting for a complaint about wording.
It should be obvious: that's the comment I was replying to.
> and even explicitly quote the stuff that has nothing to do with the "in public" you're responding to?
To preserve the context, because the original comment was deleted while the OP continued to defend it.
> 2. Come on, you can figure out what they meant by "public". It's not in the broader spheres of influence that connect to her. She doesn't see this site, this site doesn't see her.
Yeah, I did figure it out. But we're not Humpty Dumptys here, so we don't get to redefine words on a whim.
In short: that's what he meant, but that's not what "public" means.