I'm surprised that this turned out to be such a vile thing to bring up, judging by how it has been recieved. I always had the impression that places like HN were quick to point out linguistic and grammatical issues, even when they might be viewed as pedantic. And even when the issue that is brought up is subjective, or otherwise based on (linguistic) ideology - like what might be the case in this case. Like for example use of gender-neutral pronouns, which seems to go contrary to normal use, but has some compelling arguments going for them. And although I might be wrong in my assertion that the author
shouldn't refer to someone by such a spelling, am I really so pig-headed and obnoxious that I should be punished so harshly, vote-wise? I am not really whining about down votes (they can't be taken back, anyway), but asking if someone should be down voted so much for simply being wrong about something? And being wrong without being willfully ignorant or lazy (like, to give a bland but current example, people who refuse to vaccinate their children in spite of monumental evidence compelling them to do so).
Or is perhaps the issue that the linguistic side-track is about a non-English language, on an English speaking site, and so is judged to be too off topic? In that case all I can say is that is completely on me if only that initial mention was enough to be too off topic. But it is only partly on me when considering the whole discussion, since discussions take on a life on their own. Especially when they turn out to be somewhat controversial. :)
Or is perhaps the issue that the linguistic side-track is about a non-English language, on an English speaking site, and so is judged to be too off topic? In that case all I can say is that is completely on me if only that initial mention was enough to be too off topic. But it is only partly on me when considering the whole discussion, since discussions take on a life on their own. Especially when they turn out to be somewhat controversial. :)