I do believe the first word in my previous comment was "sorry" for the mistake, and unfortunately I can't edit that comment anymore to correct the mistake.
Also, I have no reason to apologies to the commenter as he did not provide any evidence to support his claims that "e-ink is evil" in order for his integrity to be affected, to warrant an apology for my counter-arguments, nor do I think the original commenter is petty enough to be offended by my honest mistake, which I rectified later.
I'm not the person who apologised or the person who was apologised to, but the following, to me, reads like an appropriate apology in the context:
> Sorry, I'm not a native English speaker. "disingenuous " was the wrong word in that context. I meant to use it as a synonym for "unfair" and made a mistake.
This particular mistake (assuming disingenuous means a little less than it does) is not particularly uncommon among native english speakers (or on HN, at that).
FWIW:
> you called them a liar who was pretending to be stupid
The "pretending to be stupid" is not an essential part of the definition above (merely "typically by").
Finally, Merriam-Webster offers up other definitions:
lacking in candor
giving a false appearance of simple frankness
These don't fit particularly with the strident definition you're using.
English words are complex, with contextual and flexible meanings. You've picked one definition. And then you've attacked someone's integrity on the basis of it, which is exactly what you're arguing has been done to someone else. Don't be this guy.
Also, I have no reason to apologies to the commenter as he did not provide any evidence to support his claims that "e-ink is evil" in order for his integrity to be affected, to warrant an apology for my counter-arguments, nor do I think the original commenter is petty enough to be offended by my honest mistake, which I rectified later.