Sometimes, people can make wrong assumptions by reading one's words alone. First, not everything is carefully worded, sometimes you choose the wrong words and didn't realize until someone responded. Also, not all context/information is necessarily expressed - for example, you know an argument, and you already know more information about your argument, you don't always write them down, because talking on a forum is not your exam. Another example is when you know an argument and its counterargument, and you talk about the argument, someone may come and say: "you are misguided, don't you know its counterargument"? Second, no tone, facial expression, or other social hints are preserved, when you talk about an argument casually, others may assume that you are serious.
When I claimed that Satoshi was active in the cypherpunk group, I didn't say that I was also thinking about the citations in the original Bitcoin paper, specifically, Wei Dai's "b-money" or Adam Back's "Hashcash", both came from the infosec community of the late 90s, and they are something that a member of the cypherpunk group should be intimately familiar with. An additional piece of information about his avoidance of using secp256r1 curve fits into the narrative well, and they can be circumstantial evidence if you buy into it. Also, I wasn't being serious at all, I mentioned it simply because it's just an interesting idea related to the original article and other readers may find the idea interesting as well, and I used the phrase "shed some lights", which, according to Merriam-Webster, is a phrase that means, "to make it possible to understand or know more about something", not a bad choice. Unfortunately, I misused the word "evidence", a pretty strong word. I should have used "circumstantial evidence" or "hints". while I was typing the original comment, I was also thinking about the possibility that Satoshi wasn't an active cypherpunk in the 2000s but simply a follower who had read the mailing list archive after the group became inactive, but I didn't mention either. I was not writing a background check for Satoshi, there's enough good articles on the Web.
When nonefromabove was replying my comment, nonefromabove, who was being unaware of anything of the above, must have deduced that I was fallen into the "connecting-the-dots" fallacy, or having a somewhat conspiracy theorist's attitude on Satoshi's identity, and I was being completely serious about it. Meanwhile, I was well-aware of the cognitive bias of overfitting data, and I was a fan of Nate Silver's The Signal and the Noise when his book came out. Nevertheless, I was told that I was "reading too much into this", and how "my mind works with tiny information and how I confuse noise for signal".
Perhaps, to avoid misunderstanding like this, we may use a "confidence" label, inc. "almost certain, likely, possible, unlikely", and a "tone" label, inc. "joke, casual, argument, serious", and so on.