3 ms·

Citation needed. Your quibble over the precise date of the post seems predictive of an inability to deal with the larger points raised.

dang 11y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10822640 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10822640 Since you used the date to falsely justify an ad hominem—the polar opposite of a "larger point"—it's not a quibble how wrong you got it.
- hammerandtongs 11y ago
  Ad hominem doesn't quite mean what you suggest. The two postings are directly related and not an attack based on his wearing of red shirts on thursdays. From the wikipedia """Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.[3]"""
  - narrowrail 11y ago
    I think part of the point is that pg didn't "post" these to HN himself at all. Someone else submitted a blog post from pg from 2004, and then someone else submitted this recent blog post. In other words, the author of the posts didn't submit them for discussion on HN at all, counter to the insinuation you appear to have made.
runesoerensen 11y ago
> Citation needed. Actually just a bit of research was needed, but I've done that for you: Internet Archive[1] and previous Hacker News discussion[2]. If you want people to take your points seriously I wouldn't recommend such unnecessary and unwarranted sarcasm. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.paulgraham.com/cornpone.html https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.paulgraham.com/corn... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=189873 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=189873
- hammerandtongs 11y ago
  Actually thanks for the web archive method I'll use that again. I was factually confused by this undated repost, but what was unneccessary or unwarranted? Does the timing in posts make this deeply self involved opinion ok?

dang 11y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10822640 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10822640 Since you used the date to falsely justify an ad hominem—the polar opposite of a "larger point"—it's not a quibble how wrong you got it.

hammerandtongs 11y ago
Ad hominem doesn't quite mean what you suggest. The two postings are directly related and not an attack based on his wearing of red shirts on thursdays. From the wikipedia """Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.[3]"""
- narrowrail 11y ago
  I think part of the point is that pg didn't "post" these to HN himself at all. Someone else submitted a blog post from pg from 2004, and then someone else submitted this recent blog post. In other words, the author of the posts didn't submit them for discussion on HN at all, counter to the insinuation you appear to have made.

runesoerensen 11y ago

> Citation needed. Actually just a bit of research was needed, but I've done that for you: Internet Archive[1] and previous Hacker News discussion[2]. If you want people to take your points seriously I wouldn't recommend such unnecessary and unwarranted sarcasm. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.paulgraham.com/cornpone.html https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.paulgraham.com/corn... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=189873 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=189873

hammerandtongs 11y ago
Actually thanks for the web archive method I'll use that again. I was factually confused by this undated repost, but what was unneccessary or unwarranted? Does the timing in posts make this deeply self involved opinion ok?