You were responding to a post that said specific things, not entering a discussion where you present related ideas which you want to talk about. If you want to talk about the news the post was responding to, or to talk about their general lack of mission alignment, you can do that in a separate post—or at the very least say that you have a separate related point from the topic of article.
I see the problem now. I failed to observe the content as a link post by skimming over the words ‘in the full post’. I then failed to observe you were presenting a link that you wrote and not additional news articles, and then reacted to your summary of the more detailed argument as if it was the entire content.
And then instead of carefully re-examining why I missed the point, I doubled down on the justification within the maligned epistemics. You are right, given that observation it was not the appropriate place for the comment and even worse the pushback. I am sorry for wasting your time.
You were responding to a post that said specific things, not entering a discussion where you present related ideas which you want to talk about. If you want to talk about the news the post was responding to, or to talk about their general lack of mission alignment, you can do that in a separate post—or at the very least say that you have a separate related point from the topic of article.
I see the problem now. I failed to observe the content as a link post by skimming over the words ‘in the full post’. I then failed to observe you were presenting a link that you wrote and not additional news articles, and then reacted to your summary of the more detailed argument as if it was the entire content.
And then instead of carefully re-examining why I missed the point, I doubled down on the justification within the maligned epistemics. You are right, given that observation it was not the appropriate place for the comment and even worse the pushback. I am sorry for wasting your time.