3 ms·

I noted that I didn't read that section, apologized to the first person to point it out, and edited my comment to reflect it. The rest of my points stand quite

I noted that I didn't read that section, apologized to the first person to point it out, and edited my comment to reflect it. The rest of my points stand quite well on their own and have nothing to do with Milo except as an example.

forloop 10y ago
> > I refer of course to the Milo Yiannopoulos situation You make reference to your first paragraph (see above) as being to do with Milo. The second para is about Milo. That's The majority of your comment. You sir, are a liar. Addendum: Presume I'm getting downvoted for calling the OP a liar. It's literally what he did. It's in writing.
- jsmthrowaway 10y ago
  No, you were getting downvoted because of your indignant hysteria and outright harassment of a commenter over something completely irrelevant, and now I suspect that will transition to being downvoted for complaining about downvoting. Don't do either.
  - forloop 10y ago
    > indignant hysteria Stating a fact is indignant hysteria? I was replying to his comment which was a lie. > outright harassment I'll come back to this. > a commenter over something completely irrelevant OK. From OP: "The man deserved what he got, but there are dozens of accounts that were his "executors" - doing the actual harassment for him in many cases - who got off scot-free, while he remains banned. There is no consistency." From the article: "However, the decision to ban Milo because of the actions of a few of his 500,000 followers (if that is indeed why this occurred) is horribly inconsistent." Both of these statements are semantically similar—there is inconsistency. That's an example of where the comment is low quality due to the OP not reading the article. So I reject that it's irrelevant. Back to the harassment. I stated facts as plainly as I could. If he/she finds facts intimidating then I would say it's on the OP to examine what he/she said & did, and not on me to ignore or use mental gymnastics to defend incorrect statements.
    - ivraatiems 10y ago
      I wasn't gonna reply, but you've called me a liar at least twice now, so I feel bound to. Nothing in my comment as it stands now is false. Nothing in my responses to you are false. When I noticed something incorrect, I modified it, noted it, and accepted responsibility. The fact that my comment is similar to the article doesn't make it false. The fact that I didn't notice the similarity immediately doesn't make it false. Even if my comment is of lesser quality because I didn't read the section of the article on Milo, which is a matter of opinion, that does not make me a liar. Most importantly, the opinions stated in the last two sentences of the comment are positions that could be addressed on their own merits even if everything I had said up till that point was a lie, which it was not. It seems to me that you have a preconceived understanding of what I was trying to say. I can't speak to what t that is or why, but I can see that rather than admit that you have a difference of opinion with me or engage me on my points, you attack me as a liar. In the process, you break HN rules and destroy part of the civility this comment chain has otherwise been enjoying. You are the one causing the issue here, not me, and you ought to stop.
      - forloop 10y ago
        > Nothing in my comment as it stands now is false. Nothing in my responses to you are false. When I noticed something incorrect, I modified it, noted it, and accepted responsibility. But you didn't go back in time and read the article before your comment. That's the point. > The fact that my comment is similar to the article doesn't make it false. The fact that I didn't notice the similarity immediately doesn't make it false. That's not what you lied about and you know it. It was this statement you made (which I directly referenced): "The rest of my points stand quite well on their own and have nothing to do with Milo except as an example." In your original comment you stated: "I refer of course to the Milo Yiannopoulos situation". You describe the situation in the first para, and then say it's Milo Yiannopoulos' situation. So you talk about his situation in the first paragraph, and then in the second. Your first paragraph (of the first post) is 117 words. The second is 71 (according to some word count web site). That's well over 50% of your post. And you say that it's true that your post has nothing to do with Milo except as an example. I'm starting to think you didn't read what you wrote (as well as the post!). > Even if my comment is of lesser quality because I didn't read the section of the article on Milo, which is a matter of opinion, that does not make me a liar. I made reference to that to show that someone not reading an article before commenting is relevant. It had nothing to do with my position on your honesty. It was a reply to another comment. The rest of my points stand quite well on their own and have nothing to do with Milo except as an example. > Most importantly, the opinions stated in the last two sentences of the comment are positions that could be addressed on their own merits even if everything I had said up till that point was a lie, which it was not. It wasn't your original comment which was a lie it was your defence of (supposedly) not reading the article in its entirety (the second comment). And the last two sentences are a tiny fraction of your entire comment. Most of the comment was on Milo. You like your strew men.

forloop 10y ago

> > I refer of course to the Milo Yiannopoulos situation You make reference to your first paragraph (see above) as being to do with Milo. The second para is about Milo. That's The majority of your comment. You sir, are a liar. Addendum: Presume I'm getting downvoted for calling the OP a liar. It's literally what he did. It's in writing.

jsmthrowaway 10y ago
No, you were getting downvoted because of your indignant hysteria and outright harassment of a commenter over something completely irrelevant, and now I suspect that will transition to being downvoted for complaining about downvoting. Don't do either.
- forloop 10y ago
  > indignant hysteria Stating a fact is indignant hysteria? I was replying to his comment which was a lie. > outright harassment I'll come back to this. > a commenter over something completely irrelevant OK. From OP: "The man deserved what he got, but there are dozens of accounts that were his "executors" - doing the actual harassment for him in many cases - who got off scot-free, while he remains banned. There is no consistency." From the article: "However, the decision to ban Milo because of the actions of a few of his 500,000 followers (if that is indeed why this occurred) is horribly inconsistent." Both of these statements are semantically similar—there is inconsistency. That's an example of where the comment is low quality due to the OP not reading the article. So I reject that it's irrelevant. Back to the harassment. I stated facts as plainly as I could. If he/she finds facts intimidating then I would say it's on the OP to examine what he/she said & did, and not on me to ignore or use mental gymnastics to defend incorrect statements.
  - ivraatiems 10y ago
    I wasn't gonna reply, but you've called me a liar at least twice now, so I feel bound to. Nothing in my comment as it stands now is false. Nothing in my responses to you are false. When I noticed something incorrect, I modified it, noted it, and accepted responsibility. The fact that my comment is similar to the article doesn't make it false. The fact that I didn't notice the similarity immediately doesn't make it false. Even if my comment is of lesser quality because I didn't read the section of the article on Milo, which is a matter of opinion, that does not make me a liar. Most importantly, the opinions stated in the last two sentences of the comment are positions that could be addressed on their own merits even if everything I had said up till that point was a lie, which it was not. It seems to me that you have a preconceived understanding of what I was trying to say. I can't speak to what t that is or why, but I can see that rather than admit that you have a difference of opinion with me or engage me on my points, you attack me as a liar. In the process, you break HN rules and destroy part of the civility this comment chain has otherwise been enjoying. You are the one causing the issue here, not me, and you ought to stop.
    - forloop 10y ago
      > Nothing in my comment as it stands now is false. Nothing in my responses to you are false. When I noticed something incorrect, I modified it, noted it, and accepted responsibility. But you didn't go back in time and read the article before your comment. That's the point. > The fact that my comment is similar to the article doesn't make it false. The fact that I didn't notice the similarity immediately doesn't make it false. That's not what you lied about and you know it. It was this statement you made (which I directly referenced): "The rest of my points stand quite well on their own and have nothing to do with Milo except as an example." In your original comment you stated: "I refer of course to the Milo Yiannopoulos situation". You describe the situation in the first para, and then say it's Milo Yiannopoulos' situation. So you talk about his situation in the first paragraph, and then in the second. Your first paragraph (of the first post) is 117 words. The second is 71 (according to some word count web site). That's well over 50% of your post. And you say that it's true that your post has nothing to do with Milo except as an example. I'm starting to think you didn't read what you wrote (as well as the post!). > Even if my comment is of lesser quality because I didn't read the section of the article on Milo, which is a matter of opinion, that does not make me a liar. I made reference to that to show that someone not reading an article before commenting is relevant. It had nothing to do with my position on your honesty. It was a reply to another comment. The rest of my points stand quite well on their own and have nothing to do with Milo except as an example. > Most importantly, the opinions stated in the last two sentences of the comment are positions that could be addressed on their own merits even if everything I had said up till that point was a lie, which it was not. It wasn't your original comment which was a lie it was your defence of (supposedly) not reading the article in its entirety (the second comment). And the last two sentences are a tiny fraction of your entire comment. Most of the comment was on Milo. You like your strew men.