4 ms·

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 respon

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.
- ivraatiems 10y ago
  From my original post: > "I think there's a possibility that the arbitrary enforcement is partially because Twitter knows that if it were consistent in enforcing its own rules, so much of its population of users would disappear that it would be hobbling itself. > "The only "safe" way to use Twitter now is as an echo chamber - only follow people you like, only talk to people who think the same way you do. That's a waste." These are points. The content above them is evidence leading to the points. The points can be made on their own without the evidence, but a good way to construct an argument is to state the evidence before the points. I could have posted them on their own without the stuff about Milo and they would have stood just fine. That's what I'm referring to in my second comment. Length by percentage in this case has nothing to do with semantic or rhetorical value. But I think you probably know that, since you ended this comment by insulting me again instead of responding to my content. It seems to me that it's easier for you to insult me than to engage with what I'm saying. I'm done with this conversation now. If you need to think me a liar in order to protect whatever your narrative is about all this, okay. If you just prefer to assume bad faith when someone makes a mistake, rather than give people the benefit of the doubt at no cost to yourself, okay. The rest of HN can (and has, judging by the flags and downvotes) decide for themselves.
  - forloop 10y ago
    > Length by percentage in this case has nothing to do with semantic or rhetorical value. In logic, the strength of an inductive argument is based on the premises. So I would say that the premises have great rhetorical value. With that in mind, length seems like a reasonable proxy. > It seems to me that it's easier for you to insult me than to engage with what I'm saying. I just wrote a massive comment. When you say things like this, it brings out the gadfly in me. It's absurd to say I don't engage with what you're saying. I wrote a reply to nearly everything you said. > If you just prefer to assume bad faith when someone makes a mistake, rather than give people the benefit of the doubt at no cost to yourself, okay. I explained why. With the mistake, you're referring to the your first comment again. To repeat: it has nothing to do with that!
    - 10y ago

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.

ivraatiems 10y ago
From my original post: > "I think there's a possibility that the arbitrary enforcement is partially because Twitter knows that if it were consistent in enforcing its own rules, so much of its population of users would disappear that it would be hobbling itself. > "The only "safe" way to use Twitter now is as an echo chamber - only follow people you like, only talk to people who think the same way you do. That's a waste." These are points. The content above them is evidence leading to the points. The points can be made on their own without the evidence, but a good way to construct an argument is to state the evidence before the points. I could have posted them on their own without the stuff about Milo and they would have stood just fine. That's what I'm referring to in my second comment. Length by percentage in this case has nothing to do with semantic or rhetorical value. But I think you probably know that, since you ended this comment by insulting me again instead of responding to my content. It seems to me that it's easier for you to insult me than to engage with what I'm saying. I'm done with this conversation now. If you need to think me a liar in order to protect whatever your narrative is about all this, okay. If you just prefer to assume bad faith when someone makes a mistake, rather than give people the benefit of the doubt at no cost to yourself, okay. The rest of HN can (and has, judging by the flags and downvotes) decide for themselves.
- forloop 10y ago
  > Length by percentage in this case has nothing to do with semantic or rhetorical value. In logic, the strength of an inductive argument is based on the premises. So I would say that the premises have great rhetorical value. With that in mind, length seems like a reasonable proxy. > It seems to me that it's easier for you to insult me than to engage with what I'm saying. I just wrote a massive comment. When you say things like this, it brings out the gadfly in me. It's absurd to say I don't engage with what you're saying. I wrote a reply to nearly everything you said. > If you just prefer to assume bad faith when someone makes a mistake, rather than give people the benefit of the doubt at no cost to yourself, okay. I explained why. With the mistake, you're referring to the your first comment again. To repeat: it has nothing to do with that!
  - 10y ago