You referred to it: "just now I glanced at the article and it seems the author writes in a confusing way..."
> I was responding to the comment, not the article.
It sure looks like you were responding to both, and I addressed both. Also, you're going to have a hard time understanding HN comments if you don't read top-level comments as responses to the article, even if they don't start with "I agree with the article" as max_k's comment did.
The comment was made in response to the article. This whole discussion is in the context of the article. You choosing to ignore that doesn't mean everyone else has to let you.
> I didn't quote anything from the article.
You referred to it: "just now I glanced at the article and it seems the author writes in a confusing way..."
> I was responding to the comment, not the article.
It sure looks like you were responding to both, and I addressed both. Also, you're going to have a hard time understanding HN comments if you don't read top-level comments as responses to the article, even if they don't start with "I agree with the article" as max_k's comment did.
The comment was made in response to the article. This whole discussion is in the context of the article. You choosing to ignore that doesn't mean everyone else has to let you.
And I was saying his comment is wrong. Sometimes HN can be just so reddit-like.
His comment is _not_ wrong. He says "I agree with the article, FastCGI is better than HTTP for these things."
"These things" being the communication between a proxy and the backend.