3 ms·

> Please note carefully that I'm not comparing poor corporate governance to spousal abuse. Don't be disingenuous. That's a ridiculous and awful comparison and

> Please note carefully that I'm not comparing poor corporate governance to spousal abuse. Don't be disingenuous. That's a ridiculous and awful comparison and you know it. You should be ashamed.

simoncion 11y ago
> Don't be disingenuous. I'm absolutely not being disingenuous. As I said, I am -in fact- not making a comparison between the situation with Mozilla and my hypothetical statement. As I stated, I'm illustrating the general point that it often pays to keep track of when an entity has wronged you so you can weigh their current attempts at reconciliation against their history of wrongs. Remember also that I was replying to the following statement: > This kind of negativity is really common on HN and it makes me sad. ... "This group of people did something I don't like, and then they changed their mind and stopped doing it. But rather than being happy about fixing their mistake, I'm going to keep criticizing them for making the mistake in the first place." I address the author's misconceptions in the first 'graph of my reply.
- nnethercote 11y ago
  Bringing up a subject while denying it should be brought up generally considered a dirty rhetorical trick, particularly when done in a distasteful way like you did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophasis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophasis.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    > Bringing up a subject while denying it should be brought up... I pointed to and accounted for everything in my original comment and the follow-on comment. When did I deny that anything I brought up in my original topic should be brought up? That's not what's going on here. You appear to be claiming that -despite my repeated assertions to the contrary- I compared poor corporate governance to spousal abuse in my original comment. I didn't. I don't know how much clearer I can make this for you. Edit: I remembered an old comment that I wrote a while back that explains how I feel about writing and how I try to structure my writing. [0] Maybe this might make things clearer for you. To save you a click, I'll quote it inline: "The world would be a far better place if fewer people would read between the lines of a given statement, and more people would make a habit of carefully parsing statements that others make. When one writes words for general consumption, it's oh so tiresome to front-load one's writing with a bevy of disclaimers and preemptive clarifications. You will inevitably fail to include one clause or another, causing someone, somewhere to successfully misunderstand your words. It's better to write exactly what you mean, as clearly as you are able, and -when writing for capable adults- trust that your audience is capable adults who know how to read what has been written and know not to infer meaning in inappropriate places." [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10445737 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10445737

> Please note carefully that I'm not comparing poor corporate governance to spousal abuse. Don't be disingenuous. That's a ridiculous and awful comparison and you know it. You should be ashamed.

simoncion 11y ago

> Don't be disingenuous. I'm absolutely not being disingenuous. As I said, I am -in fact- not making a comparison between the situation with Mozilla and my hypothetical statement. As I stated, I'm illustrating the general point that it often pays to keep track of when an entity has wronged you so you can weigh their current attempts at reconciliation against their history of wrongs. Remember also that I was replying to the following statement: > This kind of negativity is really common on HN and it makes me sad. ... "This group of people did something I don't like, and then they changed their mind and stopped doing it. But rather than being happy about fixing their mistake, I'm going to keep criticizing them for making the mistake in the first place." I address the author's misconceptions in the first 'graph of my reply.

nnethercote 11y ago
Bringing up a subject while denying it should be brought up generally considered a dirty rhetorical trick, particularly when done in a distasteful way like you did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophasis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophasis.
- simoncion 11y ago
  > Bringing up a subject while denying it should be brought up... I pointed to and accounted for everything in my original comment and the follow-on comment. When did I deny that anything I brought up in my original topic should be brought up? That's not what's going on here. You appear to be claiming that -despite my repeated assertions to the contrary- I compared poor corporate governance to spousal abuse in my original comment. I didn't. I don't know how much clearer I can make this for you. Edit: I remembered an old comment that I wrote a while back that explains how I feel about writing and how I try to structure my writing. [0] Maybe this might make things clearer for you. To save you a click, I'll quote it inline: "The world would be a far better place if fewer people would read between the lines of a given statement, and more people would make a habit of carefully parsing statements that others make. When one writes words for general consumption, it's oh so tiresome to front-load one's writing with a bevy of disclaimers and preemptive clarifications. You will inevitably fail to include one clause or another, causing someone, somewhere to successfully misunderstand your words. It's better to write exactly what you mean, as clearly as you are able, and -when writing for capable adults- trust that your audience is capable adults who know how to read what has been written and know not to infer meaning in inappropriate places." [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10445737 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10445737