"calling people names": Where in this thread did I do that?
"assuming the worst possible motivations": I'm puzzled by this; can you be specific?
"blowing off a - in my eyes - honest criticism": You actually read my piece and think that I said that Baio deserved to be sued because I don't like his music? Really? Because if you think the criticism is "honest" you must agree with this reading, which is off the wall. Since I never came close to saying that, how is the criticism "honest"?
"spamming your site here": I include a link to something I wrote instead of repeating it here to make my point. Is this against some kind of HN guideline? Is everyone who does this "spamming", or just me?
"derailing the conversation": I didn't mean to. I did not introduce these topics, but was replying to a thread started by others with something that I thought, in context, was relevant and interesting. But I can understand if it doesn't seem exactly on topic - neither was the thread, not started by me.
"reality check": Apparently your term for your opinion, in the form of a series of baseless accusations.
If you want to write about being decent online, you need to write more clearly and less muddled. And if you feel like something you've previously written is relevant, link it, but don't contort too hard for a connection, because non sequitur reasons - like the one about Apple fawning over him - read like spam rather than someone trying to be part of the conversation.
"presuming that he dug for dirt instead of maybe following conversations": I presumed nothing; he himself linked to the article that I claim he used disingenuously. He told us where he got the "dirt".
I notice that you don't seem to try to defend your other claims, but I'm having some trouble making grammatical sense out of a few of your comments. You seem to be complaining that my writing is "muddled", but I can't be sure, because the very sentence where you are trying to do that is a syntactical trainwreck.
I thought you might have had a point about me not being on topic, but the upvotes on the comments you are complaining about give me some reassurance.
My "middle school" passage that you quote was meant as a parody of Baio's arguments that, at least in my judgement, amount to the claim that a trivial modification of someone else's original artistic work gives you the right to distribute the modified work. Out of context it might sound juvenile, but it was meant to goad people into thinking about his claims of "fair use".