This is the comment where I begin a new comment thread, in hopes that it'll be more prominent than if I had just contributed to the existing comment thread.<p>This is the sentence where I really don't add anything to the conversation, but simply seek to obtain more upvotes. This is the sentence where you decide to downvote me because you find my ruse to be so blatantly obvious.
This is the sentence in which I ask a question taking the incindiary post at face value. This sentence is a common-sense answer to my question, starting with "it seems that". This is the sentence in which I suggest that maybe conventional wisdom is correct. This sentence states a fact to support my suggestion.<p>This sentence attacks the blog for fallacious reasoning. This one points out the [strawman|false dilemma| other]. This sentence suggests that if the central argument is based on a fallacious point, the whole thing could be wrong. This is the sentence where I backpedal a bit and declare fallacious reasoning is not strictly indicative of an incorrect conclusion.<p>Edit: This is the edit where I poke fun at mistakes in my hastily typed response above.
This sentence is an aloof expression of awe at the intensity of the reaction to an obvious troll.<p>This sentence cites an obscure [Russian expatriate|investigative journalist|fringe physicist|absurdly cross-disciplinary|Eric Scott Raymond|Theodore Dalrymple] author with a coherent yet slightly cranky theory that [explodes|confirms] the argument of the blog post. This sentence was originally a veiled insult directed at everyone who hasn't already read the book, but was edited.<p>This sentence is an admission of the irony inherent in laughing off the subject followed by arguing about it.
This is the opening of my remark, where I warn that my out-of-the-box thinking will probably get me down-voted, because the people I'm choosing to share my precious idea with are just that close-minded and contemptible.<p>This is the actual content of my remark, which is somewhat contrary to what some (but not all) people in the discussion have already said. Here is why I try to emphasize how radical and yet somehow self-evident my opinion is, despite it not really being either.
I miss the old kuro5hin too, you guys. (<a href="http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/5/31/7738/22985" rel="nofollow">http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/5/31/7738/22985</a>)<p>Edit to add link to this, referenced in the comments there, and reasonably awesome:<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=281ax7Ovlsg" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=281ax7Ovlsg</a>
This is the angry comment where I note that this topic has been-upvoted quite a bit and has dozens of comments, but the post on <i>terribly important issue I care about</i> has received no such attention.
This is the comment where I link to Norvig without adding any insight of my own.<p><a href="http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html" rel="nofollow">http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html</a>
This is where I point out (as I did on the original) that the author is shamelessly stealing an old idea from David Moser: <a href="http://consc.net/misc/moser.html" rel="nofollow">http://consc.net/misc/moser.html</a> (which, btw, is well worth reading for anyone who hasn't seen it already).
This is the comment where I fly into a violent rage because someone had the notion of bringing up such an outrageous idea, and attempt to shut down the idea through a combination of wild accusation and difficult-to-verify conjecture.
This is a comment where I take an obvious corollary of the thesis and state it as if it, too, is a dazzling insight, in a shameless attempt to gain HN karma.