4 ms·

Your posts were definitely stronger than it might be nice if WSJ gave HN users the same treatment they give to Google users. People that make radical generaliz

by Trundle 10y ago

Your posts were definitely stronger than it might be nice if WSJ gave HN users the same treatment they give to Google users. People that make radical generalizations about others based upon one data point are among the most dangerous in our society. People that get indignant and demanding about things are some of the most dangerous in society. Dispassionate egoists don't blow themselves up.

downandout 10y ago
I demanded nothing, nor was I indignant. Before you and your ilk saw someone whose opinion you disagreed with and pounced, this was my statement: Given the sheer volume of WSJ paywall links posted here, combined with the significance of YC, surely someone at YC could call someone at WSJ and get them to bypass the paywall when the referrer is HN. It was an explanation of a problem and a suggested solution. Nothing more, nothing less. >Dispassionate egoists don't blow themselves up. Given your comments above, it's pretty clear that you are far from dispassionate in your hatred of those with whom you disagree.
- Trundle 10y ago
  Sure, just ignore everything else you typed. That seems reasonable. "Explanation of a problem" even here you're showing of what I've accused you of. You have a problem. HN doesn't seem to have a problem. WSJ doesn't seem to have a problem. But you're phrasing it like it's something objectively wrong. It's not a problem it's your problem. You don't like something and you want it a different way. That's fine. But adding all of this shit about them being abusive, obnoxious, calling them ridiculous; shows that no, you don't just want something to be a certain way you think that there's a failure on someones part if it isn't. Now you appear to be trying to what, back peddle in to the part of disinterested bystander? At least own up to your sense of entitlement. It's as defensible of a position as any other. EDIT: dispassionate in your hatred of those with whom you disagree. Hatred is what you're getting from this? Yeah this isn't going anywhere.
  - downandout 10y ago
    The fact that you are saying I have a "sense of entitlement" based upon one data point, again, is the whole problem here. > this isn't going anywhere. You're correct, this isn't going anywhere.

by Trundle 10y ago

downandout 10y ago

I demanded nothing, nor was I indignant. Before you and your ilk saw someone whose opinion you disagreed with and pounced, this was my statement: Given the sheer volume of WSJ paywall links posted here, combined with the significance of YC, surely someone at YC could call someone at WSJ and get them to bypass the paywall when the referrer is HN. It was an explanation of a problem and a suggested solution. Nothing more, nothing less. >Dispassionate egoists don't blow themselves up. Given your comments above, it's pretty clear that you are far from dispassionate in your hatred of those with whom you disagree.

Trundle 10y ago
Sure, just ignore everything else you typed. That seems reasonable. "Explanation of a problem" even here you're showing of what I've accused you of. You have a problem. HN doesn't seem to have a problem. WSJ doesn't seem to have a problem. But you're phrasing it like it's something objectively wrong. It's not a problem it's your problem. You don't like something and you want it a different way. That's fine. But adding all of this shit about them being abusive, obnoxious, calling them ridiculous; shows that no, you don't just want something to be a certain way you think that there's a failure on someones part if it isn't. Now you appear to be trying to what, back peddle in to the part of disinterested bystander? At least own up to your sense of entitlement. It's as defensible of a position as any other. EDIT: dispassionate in your hatred of those with whom you disagree. Hatred is what you're getting from this? Yeah this isn't going anywhere.
- downandout 10y ago
  The fact that you are saying I have a "sense of entitlement" based upon one data point, again, is the whole problem here. > this isn't going anywhere. You're correct, this isn't going anywhere.