well, there's 2 forms of disagreement. I never felt like I was off put by any of dang's comments that I read. AKA a disagreement of tone (in the words of The Big Lebowski: "You're not wrong, Walter. You're an asshole!). He feels professional and won't devolve into flaming like other mods on other sites. He makes his points and lets his sourcing and historical knowledge talk instead of insults or appeals to authority.

Of course there's plenty of times where I disagree philosophically, and that's fine. At the end of the day I'll never fully agree with any one person. I just simply don't want to be called any number of insults you'd hear elsewhere if you dare not tow the line perfectly.

> I agreed with him even in the times he replied to me.

I am just reacting to that bit because I think it is important (though I agree about the rest). This is a place where a reply is not a counterpoint by default, and where people can have a discussion even if they partially agree, stupid as it sounds. I realised this a while ago, reading someone who was confused that a reply they got was not an argument against them or what they were saying, but instead just someone chipping in their perspective, which was neither contradiction nor approval. Most of online discussions are very adversarial or mindless piling on.

Usually, when you see dang replying to someone, he's reminding them of the HN guidelines and very gently and patiently explaining that they're violating said guidelines. The implication I tried to make was that I had violated the guidelines at least once, dang had replied to me and I had agreed with him that I was in the wrong.

I don't disagree with your observation though. I have developed this habit of explicitly saying "I agree" before elaborating to defend against such misinterpretations of intent.