That is NOT what I wanted to say. I wanted to say that sometimes, lack of explicit discolosure can be (IMO) excused if the interest is not intentionally obfuscated and disclosure was done at some point in the past.

That means that, in my point of view, Deimorz raised a good, but biased point while failing to fully discose the contest within his comment, and notatoad brought extra missing context. Both, good things. But I would refrain from painting Deimorz as intentionally misleading, considering this, at most, unintentionally misleading.

> I would refrain from painting Deimorz as intentionally misleading

I don't think that's what happened here; in the same way that you saw Deimorz's comment as not malicious, I didn't see the response mentioning their connection to the issue as malicious either. You mention that the "disclosure was done sometime in the past", but I had never heard of them or the site they founded, so I found the comment replying with context to be informative.