"Flame wars" in the sense of actually responding to the people who are trying to have a discussion on the technical points? Suggesting that my posts involve flaming virtually ever is a flagrant mischaracterization, and we both know it.
This thread contains about the "worst" you'll find from me, with "No offense, but this reveals your ignorance...". This is a flame only insofar as "flame" constitutes any disagreement at all.
When the account was rate-limited, the complaint was a) that HN had received out-of-band complaints from people who were getting mad that I discouraged others from deploying database clusters on Kubernetes; and b) that my posts on the subject were "trite". Maybe I don't waste enough time on HN, but I'd never seen that before.
I concede there was one post in that thread that could be interpreted as borderline incendiary, suggesting that the only reason to run a database on top of k8s is to win "GCool Points" (a position I continue to maintain), but it was directed at no one in particular, intended to provide some levity to non-techno-hipsters, and prevent some of the routine noise we see every time I make that type of post from people who really don't have any counter-point except that "Google does it!". Hardly a habit of engaging in flame wars. And it was used by HN/YC as an excuse to "detach" the entire thread, in which a real technical debate was occurring, as is occurring here, instead of just the single borderline post.
I understand that you feel the need to go on the record with a denial. I hope you can appreciate that I feel that need too, whether the accusation is implied through the rate limit that prevents me from replying and may mislead others into believing that my position is indefensible, or explicit, as it is now.