> "Please don't comment on whether someone read an article."

Damore's memo is not an article in this sense and it especially is not what OP submitted.

> "Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity."

Why do you present this criticism to someone who offers evidence, but not to the other party, who is making assertions directly contradicted by the evidence for the purpose of character assassination? How is it not "political or ideological battle" to accuse someone, without evidence and in clear contradiction of available evidence, of being a "hero of the alt-right" who is following their "playbook"?

Further: I explicitly offered to continue the conversation by email instead. I received no email, and received a comment reply. It is not fair or reasonable to castigate me for replying.

Further: this subthread started with scuff3d making the sarcastic remark "God forbid they stand up for people and fight for an inclusive work environment. How dare they!", uncharitably representing someone else's position and clearly intending "political or ideological battle". This then allowed for you to introduce Damore as a topic, in proposing that someone else's entirely reasonable positions were somehow harmful and implicitly justifying that they should have gotten Damore fired, an ideological position unrelated to the PSF except insofar as the underlying ideology is treated as a topic.