>> you seem to be saying that they are using two separate kernels, one for the bootloader and one for the final boot target
This doesn't make sense. There's nothing in the post you responded to which could realistically be interpreted as making that point. And there haven't been any edits, which might have explained your confusion.
the comment says 'they are proposing a bootloader, which can still let you modify the cmdline, (...) the bootloader is itself using the Linux kernel'
possibly you don't know this, but in order to run a kernel with a modified command line, the bootloader-kernel would need to run a second kernel, for example using kexec; linux doesn't have a useful way to modify the command line of the running kernel. that's why i interpreted the comment as saying that they are proposing using two separate kernels. in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40910796 comex clarifies that they are in fact proposing using two separate kernels; the reason i was confused is that that's not the only configuration they're proposing
What I know or don't know is irrelevant, because what matters is that your statement rests of bringing in external knowledge/assumptions, so it's clearly not what the commenter is saying (alone).
Indeed, but accusing someone of saying something based on unstated external knowledge/assumptions is the original problem here. They just needed to say words to the effect of "taken with point X what you say implies Y" and it would be fine and much less accusatory.
This doesn't make sense. There's nothing in the post you responded to which could realistically be interpreted as making that point. And there haven't been any edits, which might have explained your confusion.