I've learned quite a bit about the michaelochurch argument technique from this thread:

Step 1: Make up stories about your enemy that nobody on the forum can verify. (Be it that your manager is a terrorist or that the Wikipedia admin who banned you is a child rapist.)

Step 2: ???

Step 3: Post again with an even more grandiose tale.

Why are you wasting your time on HN when you could be writing screenplays instead?

I have no idea whether "User: Isomorphic" was a child rapist. He got in trouble for her being intoxicated, and for supplying alcohol to a minor, and so there were a lot of suspicions, but I don't know what was proven and, quite honestly, I don't want to even think about that. I prefer not to think about the sorts of people who do that stuff.

The "terrorist" thing is getting taken way out of its original context. I was not comparing Google's problem executives to terrorists. I was saying that they enjoy destruction and take inspiration from it. I could have replaced "terrorist attacks" with "gruesome accidents". They're saboteurs, not terrorists.