Then you already know that TheZenPsycho's hypocrisy was irrelevant? Not merely "not mutually exclusive with being correct", but basically a non-sequiter. So tell me, why bother bringing it up? At this point, I really am curious what you were thinking.

> trotting out logical fallacies doesn't make you look smart

But fallacies are useful for stating my position succinctly and accurately. If you're familiar, then the chance you'll misunderstand me is negligible. If you're unfamiliar, then the chance you'll misunderstand me (upon reading wikipedia and my example) is at least reduced. The alternative is to concoct an explanation which leads us to speak past each other. I give you Example A:

> The point is that the parent seemed oh so saddened by the lack of constructive discourse here, yet he has at least two similar comments.

No, that's not your point. That's one of your supporting arguments. Your actual point is "Therefore, TheZenPsycho should not have criticized me." I agree, fallacies don't make me look any smarter. But I imagine they avoid making me look as dumb as someone who can't defend their own position properly.

Furthermore, my comment was a Refutation of the Central Point. As a fellow HN user, surely you recognize this from How to Disagree [1]. Your point was predicated solely upon double standards (and vitriol?). And then I stated not only that double standards are noise, but also why I actually disagree with you by referencing HN's guidelines.

[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

    No, that's not your point. That's one of your supporting arguments. Your actual point is "Therefore, TheZenPsycho should not have criticized me."

Seriously, it's just exhausting talking to people like you. I'm sure both of you are a blast to be around in real life (that was sarcasm in case it was lost on you).

> dealing with you and Zen is just wearisome.

Maybe your judgement indicates more about you than us? Perhaps you feel that dealing with us is wearisome? It's not as if I have an html tag floating next to me that says <wearisome>. It's like that joke about how Bob says "all my ex's are crazy", yet the most obvious common thread in Bob's failed relationships is Bob himself. Or like when a rookie whines, and the members say "If you can't take the heat, get out of the street."

But given your point (verbatim: "dealing with humorless gits like you and Zen is just wearisome.") was to insult others (rather than offer constructive criticism, even if it's "get over yourself"), I can't think of any reason why you would reply to Zen to begin with other than to satisfy your own ego. I mean, really, what else in the world did you expect to have changed via insult?

> I'm sure both of you are a blast to be around in real life

Sarcasm duly noted. But I admit, I'm having issues with the scope of this discussion (see what I did there? ',:D ). First, we're playing by the rules of the internet. Next, we're playing by the rules of real life. I've noticed a pattern. Rather reify to HN, you abstract away from HN. What's next, the rules of the cosmos? The 11 commandments decried by the flying spaghetti monster himself?

I think you're in denial of where we are. Like, have you ever even skimmed the guidelines? Do you say "You must be a blast in real life" when people sush you in a library? Do you derive satisfaction from rickrolling facebook, and comment "we're on the web. street rulez"? On one hand, it probably really is no big deal. But on the other hand, the librarian is probably justified in moderating the library.

    Maybe your judgement indicates more about you than us? Perhaps you feel that dealing with us is wearisome?