No, not really. I was answering certain accusations with my opposing opinions.
Unfortunately, I can't understand where a person is coming from if I don't understand their definitions of certain terms, and I can't understand your definitions of flamewar and flamebait.
> If you get into back-and-forths with an opposing user around that kind of thing, you're perpetuating flamewar. This is clearly not curious conversation.
I guess I misunderstand the purpose of HN because this line of yours makes it seem (to me) like I cannot debate political things at all, or rather, certain topics (does "around that kind of thing" means political things?), but that doesn't seem right either.
> However, there are many ways to lower the expected value of a thread, and flamebait/flamewar is just one of them.
That's why I think putting the lowering of the expected value of a thread into the guidelines is the right choice: it covers more situations.
> I think it's important to be specific.
I have shut off the discussion you didn't like, but it would be helpful to me if you were more specific about what you see as flamebait and flamewar. If I understand what you want me to not do, I'll avoid it, but I can't avoid something I'm unclear on. I also don't like self-censoring more than necessary (that is what the posted article was about, after all).
However, I expect that you're busy and won't be able to answer me, so extra self-censoring might be what I have to do. It makes me sad, though; I felt like HN was one place where I didn't have to do that, and now, it does not.
Edit: one thing that I could consider is trying to not answer every accusation that I'm a terrible person. Ten years ago, my Christian faith would not be attacked so openly. Now, people consider me a terrible person for believing those same things, and I find myself defending my faith a lot, albeit indirectly.
I will try to do that less on HN at least. Would that be what you are doing of me?