I don't really understand if you're chastising me or if you're seriously engaging in discussion. If your sole objection is to the tone and word choice of my response, I'll happily concede the point. You dismissed my perception of HN's worldview ("if there is such a thing") as imaginary and due to my susceptibility to unnamed sources of information. I replied contrarily in a purposefully absolutist manner based solely on the original post.

I recognize the zeitgeist is to "leave room for other options" for discursive comfort, but there is a fine line between that and self-defeatism, as much as I might agree that it could have rhetorical advantages to do so. I do not really seek those advantages, since I don't truly seek any gain. The "other options," in this case, might be that some of you are not worshiping Golden Calves and that some of you might be willing to agree that an algorithmic enumeration of bloggers, financiers, and self-promoters could be an anti-intellectual listing of false idols. I accept this could indeed be true for some of you, but it's not incumbent upon me to make your points for you in every rejoinder so as to parry your bristling.