4 ms·

>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 ---

>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.
- allodium 10y ago
  Does zelon88 indicate anywhere that he/she agrees with the US' stance that the exploited vulnerabilities were dumb?
  - tptacek 10y ago
    No, which is why I said that the story and their comment can't simultaneously be true. For what it's worth: the story is likely to be true. That bit is my own opinion, of course, but it's a reasonably informed opinion.
- justratsinacoat 10y ago
  >You seem upset that I didn't address the entirety of someone else's comment, but instead only part of it I seem upset with you responding to an idea that wasn't actually in a comment. Conflating the ideas of the author of a piece you disagree with, and the poster you initially replied to, is wrong, plain and simple. It's intellectually dishonest and doesn't belong on a forum like HN. You should know better -- you're ostensibly a power user around here. That's why I asked about the trolling, because this is pretty obviously that. 'zelon88 claimed the autistic man in question was a 'genius', you then attacked the idea that the US was embarassed by the hacks, which 'zelon88 didn't claim. It's very simple. >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 Are you seriously trying to claim that grabbing a single word out of a comment, fixating on it, and then continuing by attacking an idea not present in the comment is somehow not "out of context or inconsistent somehow with the rest of the comment"?! So, in case this wasn't clear to you: I object to the notion that the person who said "he's a genius" and the person who said "these hacks embarassed the US" are the same person when they're obviously, verifiably not. I've linked both posts ('zelon88's and your initial reply) several times now! Is it that you don't care? You're not fooling me; yet you are replying. Perhaps you're fooling yourself? If this doesn't clear things up, then it surely must be trolling. Since you opened the comment above this one with an intentional misrepresentation of my argument (and the rest of the comment flowed from there), it's gotta be trolling.

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.

allodium 10y ago
Does zelon88 indicate anywhere that he/she agrees with the US' stance that the exploited vulnerabilities were dumb?
- tptacek 10y ago
  No, which is why I said that the story and their comment can't simultaneously be true. For what it's worth: the story is likely to be true. That bit is my own opinion, of course, but it's a reasonably informed opinion.
justratsinacoat 10y ago
>You seem upset that I didn't address the entirety of someone else's comment, but instead only part of it I seem upset with you responding to an idea that wasn't actually in a comment. Conflating the ideas of the author of a piece you disagree with, and the poster you initially replied to, is wrong, plain and simple. It's intellectually dishonest and doesn't belong on a forum like HN. You should know better -- you're ostensibly a power user around here. That's why I asked about the trolling, because this is pretty obviously that. 'zelon88 claimed the autistic man in question was a 'genius', you then attacked the idea that the US was embarassed by the hacks, which 'zelon88 didn't claim. It's very simple. >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 Are you seriously trying to claim that grabbing a single word out of a comment, fixating on it, and then continuing by attacking an idea not present in the comment is somehow not "out of context or inconsistent somehow with the rest of the comment"?! So, in case this wasn't clear to you: I object to the notion that the person who said "he's a genius" and the person who said "these hacks embarassed the US" are the same person when they're obviously, verifiably not. I've linked both posts ('zelon88's and your initial reply) several times now! Is it that you don't care? You're not fooling me; yet you are replying. Perhaps you're fooling yourself? If this doesn't clear things up, then it surely must be trolling. Since you opened the comment above this one with an intentional misrepresentation of my argument (and the rest of the comment flowed from there), it's gotta be trolling.