4 ms·

I assume he's referring to your intentional conflation of two different peoples' claims (namely, 'zelon88 ("[w]e're going to take a genius away from civilizatio

I assume he's referring to your intentional conflation of two different peoples' claims (namely, 'zelon88 ("[w]e're going to take a genius away from civilization" [0]) and the writer of the article ("Earlier, his lawyer said his alleged hacking had "embarrassed" US authorities")): >He's a genius? I thought the US was embarrassed by how dumb the vulnerabilities he exploited were. Which is it? [0] Probably assumed you were an astroturfer and/or troll, because, hey, that's pretty shitty behaviour. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12515199 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12515199 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12515231 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12515231

lvs 10y ago
Spot on.
tptacek 10y ago
You think he's a genius? Can you flesh that argument out a bit?
- justratsinacoat 10y ago
  Do I think he's a genius? Go read my comment again and see if you can understand my very simple position against your conflating different people and their different arguments. Mods, please read this exchange, including 'tptacek's initial reply to 'zelon88. If this style of trolling is accepted on HN, I'd appreciate knowing about it -- I dearly love it and would like to ply it in these digital halls. Do you have to be as well-known a user as 'tptacek in order to get away with it?
  - tptacek 10y ago
    No, I acknowledge that you might not think he's a genius --- in fact, I'd be surprised if you thought he was, hence my request. What I don't acknowledge is that it's reasonable to comment about the "shitty behavior" of someone who makes a civil statement you happen to disagree with --- or, worse, a civil statement you actually do agree with, but don't want to acknowledge. If you want to ask the "mods" something, the best way to do that is to mail hn@ycombinator.com. It's unlikely they're going to see your comment (this thread is old, and this part of the thread is buried pretty low in it).
    - justratsinacoat 10y ago
      >What I don't acknowledge is that it's reasonable to comment about the "shitty behavior" of someone who makes a civil statement you happen to disagree with --- or, worse, a civil statement you actually do agree with, but don't want to acknowledge. Whether I disagree with you is immaterial. I merely refuse to stand by while some popular bully puts words in others' mouths. You can go on all day about how very, very civil you are, but it's clear to me that replying with a totally unsubstantive comment like >He's a genius? I thought the US was embarrassed by how dumb the vulnerabilities he exploited were. Which is it? [0] when the only the first three short words are relevant to the parent's actual statements [1]. The others were from the article, which you demonstratively either a) believe 'zelon88 wrote or b) have chosen to conflate with 'zelon88's statements. "Which is it?" You're obviously not interested in discussions with people who don't agree with you -- I can tell by the way you choose not to engage with their arguments. You've obviously calmed down now, but hiding behind claims of civility shows a shocking lack of self-awareness, particularly in light of what's actually happened. Hope you're doing OK! Keep trolling! [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12515231 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12515231 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12515199 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12515199
      - tptacek 10y ago
        I don't think name-calling is making you any more persuasive. You seem upset that I didn't address the entirety of someone else's comment, but instead only part of it. But so long as the part we choose to address isn't taken out of context or inconsistent somehow with the rest of the comment, responding to the entirety of someone else's comment is unnecessary --- in fact, it's unproductive, if you don't have much to say about it. So, in case this wasn't clear to you: I object to the notion that the person we're talking to is a "genius", and to the idea that society is losing the potential of a genius because it's punishing him for breaking into government websites. You are free to disagree with me and to make a case for his genius. You won't, because you don't disagree with me. But you're unhappy that I chose to bring this up; that's clear. I'm not interested. Move on? Or find some way to object to what I said that is actually coherent and productive; that would work too.

lvs 10y ago

Spot on.

tptacek 10y ago

You think he's a genius? Can you flesh that argument out a bit?

justratsinacoat 10y ago
Do I think he's a genius? Go read my comment again and see if you can understand my very simple position against your conflating different people and their different arguments. Mods, please read this exchange, including 'tptacek's initial reply to 'zelon88. If this style of trolling is accepted on HN, I'd appreciate knowing about it -- I dearly love it and would like to ply it in these digital halls. Do you have to be as well-known a user as 'tptacek in order to get away with it?
- tptacek 10y ago
  No, I acknowledge that you might not think he's a genius --- in fact, I'd be surprised if you thought he was, hence my request. What I don't acknowledge is that it's reasonable to comment about the "shitty behavior" of someone who makes a civil statement you happen to disagree with --- or, worse, a civil statement you actually do agree with, but don't want to acknowledge. If you want to ask the "mods" something, the best way to do that is to mail hn@ycombinator.com. It's unlikely they're going to see your comment (this thread is old, and this part of the thread is buried pretty low in it).
  - justratsinacoat 10y ago
    >What I don't acknowledge is that it's reasonable to comment about the "shitty behavior" of someone who makes a civil statement you happen to disagree with --- or, worse, a civil statement you actually do agree with, but don't want to acknowledge. Whether I disagree with you is immaterial. I merely refuse to stand by while some popular bully puts words in others' mouths. You can go on all day about how very, very civil you are, but it's clear to me that replying with a totally unsubstantive comment like >He's a genius? I thought the US was embarrassed by how dumb the vulnerabilities he exploited were. Which is it? [0] when the only the first three short words are relevant to the parent's actual statements [1]. The others were from the article, which you demonstratively either a) believe 'zelon88 wrote or b) have chosen to conflate with 'zelon88's statements. "Which is it?" You're obviously not interested in discussions with people who don't agree with you -- I can tell by the way you choose not to engage with their arguments. You've obviously calmed down now, but hiding behind claims of civility shows a shocking lack of self-awareness, particularly in light of what's actually happened. Hope you're doing OK! Keep trolling! [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12515231 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12515231 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12515199 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12515199
    - tptacek 10y ago
      I don't think name-calling is making you any more persuasive. You seem upset that I didn't address the entirety of someone else's comment, but instead only part of it. But so long as the part we choose to address isn't taken out of context or inconsistent somehow with the rest of the comment, responding to the entirety of someone else's comment is unnecessary --- in fact, it's unproductive, if you don't have much to say about it. So, in case this wasn't clear to you: I object to the notion that the person we're talking to is a "genius", and to the idea that society is losing the potential of a genius because it's punishing him for breaking into government websites. You are free to disagree with me and to make a case for his genius. You won't, because you don't disagree with me. But you're unhappy that I chose to bring this up; that's clear. I'm not interested. Move on? Or find some way to object to what I said that is actually coherent and productive; that would work too.