Since i'm the one who was involved, i should answer this. Context of my message was very much different. I said two "unrealized egoistic souls" would discuss debate on Supremacy of Shiva and Vishnu. It was general statement and it means two unrealized souls, herein discussion "me and him", would discuss that. Also, word "ego" here means "Ahamkara" or "feeling of I " (which is according to Hindu philosophy), not English "ego", else, i wouldn't use "unrealized".
Also, discussion started there as two users (honestly i don't know why OP used word "Moderator" here) and it turned into debate. Here's the complete comment which OP was saying.
@LakshmiNarayanan It's pure waste of time to discuss with someone who
has prejudices and those who can't digest the fact that they are
multiple ways to reach ultimate truth. Generally, two unrealized ego
centric souls would do that. It's better we stop it and you do your
own sadhana of your sampradaya which your Gurus and Paramagrus taught
you and i follow the path which i am inclined to.
I will explain my message in great detail. Hinduism has many schools, as you know, each school interprets or understands "ultimate reality" (Brahman) in many ways. Some schools say it is "impersonal God" and other schools say it is "personal". Among Personal Gods, some schools say it "Shiva" or some schools say it is "Vishnu". Some Hindu scriptures even say Supreme Lord created multiple philosophies so that persons with different inclinations choose different philosophies. Also, scriptures say like how different rivers unite with One ocean, different philosophies make person understand the one ultimate truth. They are just different paths. Now, obviously OP doesn't agree with this statement and hence my response was that comment.
- Although i agree "pure waste of time" is somewhat harsh, it happened in flow and it is part of human error. Apologies for using adjective "pure" in case if it is harsh. Since OP agreed he doesn't believe "multiple paths can be true", i said it is waste of time.
I already explained "unrealized egoistic souls" meaning from Hindu philosophy. I thought OP would understand since i said "Soul or Atman" and we were discussing a Hindu topic. But OP understood it as mere English meaning. Why would i call myself egoistic (of English meaning) here unless it is about "Sanskrit Ahamkara which shows we two are unrealized".
"Soul or Atman or Brahman" (in Advaita), it is explained at Vyavaharika level it gets a "feeling of I" (Ahamkara in Sanskrit) and multiplies itself and creation starts. Due to this feeling, every Soul is not realized. I willingly used the word Soul(s) not Jiva or his name to convey this meaning.
Generally, debate between "personal Gods", especially "Shiva and Vishnu" is as age old debate in Hinduism and many Hindu philosophers in recent time after invasions and British rule tried to avoid this debate as we need Hindu unity in India. So, generally it is said to follow your philosophy and i follow mine without any debates respecting each philosophies. Suggested way to stop unnecessary rivalry between sects is to "Agree to disagree" and follow "Sadhana" (spiritual rituals to realize ultimate truth) of their respective sects.
In future you can avoid discussion with any specific users whom you don't agree. Obviously, you base your arguments on Statement "Vishnu is only Supreme" considering it as true at objective level and all users on this site won't agree with that statement. So, you can't even change some users opinions through chat rooms via discussion or debates as both parties have their arguments and counter arguments. So, i felt only plausible solution is to stop the discussion and use it for some fruitful purpose rather than engaging in never ending discussion. I don't think stopping discussion is rude here at all.