I'm glad you've decided to follow your own advice and stop digging.

Ignoring your original reply to arianvanp, you'll see that interesting discussion has arisen in response to their original bold statement. This is why I read HN.

You have entered this thread, seemingly to show off your superior knowledge of PL creators, without actually contributing to the discussion. My attempt to diffuse things clearly had the opposite effect (FWIW, I was trying to point out that the words used in the article could lead to the interesting discussion that has happened, and certainly wasn't defending an attack on Joe Armstrong - an attack that you have read into but I don't feel is there).

Instead, what has been achieved?

To go meta for a moment, this is the problem with with HN that gets discussed from time to time (and I am well aware that I'm replying to a highly active user). Why do people feel the need to be so combative, just to win internet points (something someone is down 555 of by your count)? Perhaps after having pointed out who the author was, you could have explained why that matters. Maybe we aren't all as clever as you are.

Yes, arianvanp's original post was also phrased in a somewhat combative way, but at least it sparked interesting discussion. This subthread is the antithesis of that.