While those lines may not technically violate the letter of the guidelines [1], they violate the spirit of the section that says "please reply to the argument instead of calling names". Note that the next part of the guidelines gives an example of how one can and should remove an extraneous cheap shot from their argument.

Your comment history shows you are capable of producing a much higher signal-to-noise ratio than in the last few comments. Please hold yourself to a higher standard. Satirical rebuttals can be a joy to read when done right.

[0] because grellas has established himself as someone who makes lengthy, meaningful contributions, "tl;dr" type complaints will be considerably less well received than they might be in response to a genuinely too-long post from one with a less valuable contribution history. Particularly yours, because it was phrased so... thoughtlessly.

[1] http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Want me to not paint him as a whiner? How about a Show HN post of a cool new tech company he just started that actually will be useful. Failing that all I hear is someone who is mad he too doesn't have a billion in the bank.

Were I to disagree with one of grellas' comments, I would actually go something like "Thank you for posting. However (rebuttal) ... :) "

Also, lawyers / advocates are much better trained than us to write arguments :) , it's their job ! but that doesn't necessarily make them automatically right.

That said, I do tend to side with grellas' point of view.