As an aside, this is one of the least charitable ways you could have responded to that comment. It's probably why you're getting downvoted. This is why what you wrote is dismissive:
1. They quoted the portion of your comment relevant to their response,
2. They explained in a straightforward and neutral way why what you said in the quoted portion doesn't really make sense,
3. You responded without any specifics about what you're not following,
4. You assumed they simply failed to understand you.
Now, I think the part you didn't follow is this: you tried to preempt noncompete "apologists" working at large tech companies in California. However as a rule, such companies generally do not (and cannot) rely on noncompetes, which means what you're saying isn't applicable. Further, the merits of your original point notwithstanding, it's also kind of dismissive to call those on the other side of the argument "apologists" in the way you did.
The conversation hasn't been derailed at all. This subthread is at the bottom of the page; at the top of the thread there are plenty of people making new comments unencumbered by this discussion.
1. They quoted the portion of your comment relevant to their response,
2. They explained in a straightforward and neutral way why what you said in the quoted portion doesn't really make sense,
3. You responded without any specifics about what you're not following,
4. You assumed they simply failed to understand you.
Now, I think the part you didn't follow is this: you tried to preempt noncompete "apologists" working at large tech companies in California. However as a rule, such companies generally do not (and cannot) rely on noncompetes, which means what you're saying isn't applicable. Further, the merits of your original point notwithstanding, it's also kind of dismissive to call those on the other side of the argument "apologists" in the way you did.