First, I completely agree that you are responding civilly, and, given the serious nature of my comment, is, IMHO, admirable.  Kudos!

Here is the prior comment to which I refer:

>"Advantage based rewards granted through smart contracts that are living within a network of DAOs ought to provide human beings with the inducement to assume simply tough and deep approximately solving complicated troubles and growing novel methods to decorate all of our lives. My greatest wish for this concept is that the rewards are compelling enough to draw out the quality capabilities from around the world and that strong safeguards will exist to prevent gaming of the device. that is an exciting and inspiring publish. Greetings."

Upon reflection, I should have said 'point for point' rather than word for word, as the quoted comment seems to be but poorly [Edit: <strike>translating</strike> transliterating] your own well worded and written comment.

I, finally, have refrained from actually accusing, although I clearly approached the line:

>"...so doubt you simply copied their comment. Why would you plagiarize and clean up the grammar and spelling? As that makes no sense whatsoever, I remain intrigued."

If you have no insight you might provide regarding this remarkable similarity in sentiment, and are obviously not a bot, I guess that I can accept that you both simply had very similar responses, and apologize for my assumption that the apparent similarity of the comments implied anything else.

Thanks!

Edit: I have just realized that the vagaries of packet routing may have simply led me to believe that the quoted comment was posted first.  They may have simply reworded your comment, and I had not considered that.

Perhaps I should ask them to explain, instead.  It actually looks as if they ran your comment through google translate into another language, and then back to English.