I totally agree with your comments about personal style, it's what makes the comments unique. However, I agree with whackberry that, in this particular case, you did sound somewhat "smug and arrogant".
It wasn't the use of "I"s. It was:
* Your borderline ad hominem-like nitpicking about "proving" vs "demonstrating". Unless there are gross language problems, I'd rather have people disagree with the ideas rather than language use.
* Your incredulous stance that you didn't understand what whackberry refers to when s/he writes "convenience-privacy continuum?" and asking for citation. I would have used the word "spectrum" but still I think it's perfectly clear what s/he means, and it's a well-known topic.
* Your last sentence, which sort of sounds dismissive of what the person you are disagreeing with thinks.
I think it's perfectly clear what s/he means, and it's a well-known topic
I didn't think it was perfectly clear, especially in the context of saying that Mr. Stallman doesn't understand or accept it. I can conjecture what I think people mean when they say this and what argument they are making and why they think Mr. Stallman doesn't agree with them, but how do I argue with my conception of someone else's conception of what Mr. Stallman believes without attacking a strawman?
I thought it was far better to challenge the phrase and ask what it means. If someone replies and says "There's trade-off between convenience and privacy," we can have a chat about false dichotomies or whether the convenience is for telcos or for users, and so on. Or maybe they explain something else, and I might discover something unexpected.
It's dishonest to act like you have no idea what someone is talking about when, in fact, you "can conjecture what you think people mean". It's dishonest to pretend that you're entertaining the possibility that they have a citation when you know they don't. It seemed like you were trying to mock them by asking for a citation.
You could have just as easily written:
I think the trade-off between convenience and privacy is a false dichotomy.
And waited for a response or a correction. Or if you wanted to check first:
When you say privacy/convenience continuum, do you mean the trade-off between convenience and privacy?
Or if you didn't want to hazard a guess:
What do you mean when you say privacy/convenience continuum?
Any of which would have been far more gracious than what you actually said.
The fact that I can conjecture doesn't mean that I should. This is one of those "Heads you win, tails I lose" situations. You think it's dishonest to ask "What do you mean? Can you give an example of what this phrase means?" Someone else thinks it's insulting, rude, or just plain fallacious to say "You mean X and this is why I disagree" if I get X wrong. The correct response is not "Reg, you're being dishonest in asking what I mean," it's "Reg, I mean _____, for example _____."
I didn't pretend to entertain the possibility of a citation, he (or you) could easily reply "It's the same thing as this thing or that thing, just different words." I still entertain this possibility.
If you want to say I was ungracious in replying to an incredibly terse statement, I do not disagree. But dishonesty doesn't enter into asking someone what they mean by a phrase that I haven't seen before--and which doesn't have Google hits--and asking for a citation.
It wasn't the use of "I"s. It was:
* Your borderline ad hominem-like nitpicking about "proving" vs "demonstrating". Unless there are gross language problems, I'd rather have people disagree with the ideas rather than language use.
* Your incredulous stance that you didn't understand what whackberry refers to when s/he writes "convenience-privacy continuum?" and asking for citation. I would have used the word "spectrum" but still I think it's perfectly clear what s/he means, and it's a well-known topic.
* Your last sentence, which sort of sounds dismissive of what the person you are disagreeing with thinks.