> I have already said why this is not an option.

All I can see is that you said people can't find a compelling reason to do it. But that was already said long before you ever showed up and is specifically the point made in the comment you originally responded to... What do you think you are adding by just repeating that original comment over and over?

> Recognized research doesn't currently happen in blog posts.

Stands to reason. Who is doing it? Nobody is going to recognize something that doesn't exist! You have to demonstrate the value first. That is true in everything. Research is not somehow magically different.

> What does it tell you?

That nobody wants to do it. But what do you want to tell us? We already knew that nobody wants to do it.

> I don't see this discussion progressing and surfacing interesting points anymore.

It was never interesting, only humorous. Where did you find interest?

> You are disrespectful.

Ad hominem is a logical fallacy.

> Your points are subtly moving targets.

There is no apparent shift from my original comment as far as I can see. It is possible that you have misunderstood something, I suppose. I'm happy to keep trying to aid in your understanding.

> You are sharing irrelevant advice to someone who doesn't need them.

HN purportedly has 5 million monthly users. What makes you the expert on what they do and don't need? Get real.

> You are misrepresenting what I wrote.

It is possible, even likely, that I misunderstood what you wrote. But usually when you recognize that someone misunderstood you try to work with them in good faith to find an understanding, not run away crying that your precious words weren't written well enough to be understood, so I'm not sure you have really thought this through.

> I believe you are trolling me.

No you don't. The minute you legitimately thought I was a troll, you would have immediately cut off contact. Instead, you wrote a lengthy reply to give me your heartfelt goodbye. You can say this, but actions tell the true tale. Why make shit up?

> If Nature can't convince you

Said article in Nature effectively says the same things I have. What would it need to convince me of? It is on the very same page.

I'm not sure why you keep thinking you aren't (even though you clearly are). Perhaps you've confused HN with Reddit and are trying to "win" some stupid "argument" nobody cares about — most especially me? That would explain why you keep repeating my comments in what appears to be some kind of "combative" way.

> I'm done.

Got it. This pretty much proves that is exactly what you were trying to do. What motivates this?