Please don't cross into personal attack. It just makes everything worse, and you can make your substantive points without that.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

That comment lined up pretty closely with one of my pet peeves. I apologize for overreacting and contributing negatively to what was already a busy day for you. Thank you for all your hard work and patience.

Oh believe me it lines up with my pet peeves as well (and I have a lot of them). Thanks for the kind reply.

> I think reading the top comment on that post provides plenty of explanation why users would flag that post.

That top comment complains that the HN title is WSJ's informative subheading instead of its clickbaity headline.

> The top comment complains that the title submitted to HN is both not the original headline, and not an accurate characterization of the content of the article.

What do you mean: "not an accurate characterization of the content of the article"? The title pretty accurately describes an admission by the former NIAID director in a House Select Subcommittee, according to the WSJ. That admission is the topic of the article.

> And it's disingenuous for you to pretend that the issue is HN users being unwilling to reexamine the public health response to Covid-19, when the submission is clearly flouting HN's rules.

From HN's rules:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait;

I think using the clickbaity original title ("Anthony Fauci Fesses Up") would be flouting HN's rules.

Are you asserting that, if the title had remained "Anthony Fauchi [sic] Fesses Up" it would have remained, unflagged?

Maybe you should Submit it again with the original title, and see what happens.

If it had been submitted with that title, it would simply have been harder to pretend there's wasn't plenty of reason for the submission to be flagged.

What reasons would those be?