It was intended a constructive addition to the debate; whether it's constructive or destructive to this particular article's premise is neither here nor there.
And I disagree with your interpretation of my post as a monologue, obviously. A monologue implies a one-sided stream of writing or speech to which any other views are given little to no opportunity to respond. Many blogs are an example of this sort of thing. But this is HN: There's no restriction or limitation on anybody writing a response to my post that's equal in status, relevance and visibility. That makes it a dialogue.
To be honest, I also have reservations about these kinds of stories appearing on HN, but since this one's already here and still active I wanted to enhance the dialogue by providing more information about the legal background surrounding WP's use. If you're unhappy with the submission then flag it as unsuitable, but don't try suppress actual discussion on the subject if it gets underway.
Over-analyzing smart-ass comments leads nowhere... I wasn't putting down your comment, I was putting down the equally smart-ass "look, there's useful discussion here" comment that was addressed directly to me.
"Sweet, let's start discussing whether white phosphorous could be a good basis for an online start-up."
O give me a break - so it's perfectly fine when you make a smart-ass comment, but there's something wrong when I do?
Fine, if this type of article elicits that much emotion from certain members of hacker news, then I'll try not to upmod / participate in the discussion in the future.
Personally since I can detach myself from, obj analyze & discuss controversial topics (rampant piracy, totalitarianism, torture, the conduction of 'reverse-genocide') regarding my country of origin; I just thought the overwhelming maj people here can do the same. I'm beginning to feel I'm somewhat wrong
