Ad hominem is not a useful or contentful response. Again, an attempt at ridicule over engaging with the ideas and content itself. I made a perfectly polite but strong objection on style and justification grounds.

Your second half warrants response. The content of his response is irrelevant to the important point I raise, which unlike your ad hominem is about ensuring better more rational discussion: I think he's making a poor representation and skewing the average response with underhand rhetoric. 'Uh yeah' starts something less than useful. Using emotion, not reason. HN is about polite reasonable discourse.

I have no _strong_ opinion YET (edit for emphasis, I'm thinking about this) on the actual literal content of the arguments at this juncture, though that may change as I read others' justifications, theories, data and references.

Edit: My response is important for the content, as rhetorical tricks impact reception and evaluation of content.

I object to emotive skews.