4 ms·

laumars, you seem to be antagonizing my comments and downvoting regularly. There are people with different perspectives here in HN, but I do not see you replyin

laumars, you seem to be antagonizing my comments and downvoting regularly. There are people with different perspectives here in HN, but I do not see you replying to each one of them. Your only recent activity has been exclusively on my threads, with a tone not allowed on the HN comments section (personal attacks), baiting for responses so you can downvote them, since you can only downvote a reply once and there's a minimum karma requirement for downvoting so it's unfeasible to do it with fake accounts. We just had a pointless argument thread 20 levels deep a few days ago (which was not the first one), where neither of us conceded to the other's point of view. A waste of time, HN karma, and I still think you were wrong. HN is not the Monty Python argument clinic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
laumars 10y ago
You cannot down vote replies so it's not me who's been negative reping you. I also haven't been following you around HN nor posting personal attacks. I just said "all URLs are parameters" because your comment was weird and misleading (for reasons i elaborated in the other post i left yesterday). HN is a technical discussion forum so there will be times when people will disagree with the technical points you raise; particularly when you continue to comment on technical topics you only partially understand (as seen here). My advice to you would be to take a second to digest those counterarguments to check if they are informative rather than assuming every counterargument is a "personal attack". And if there's not enough data to understand their point then ask for clarification or an elaboration. I've learned a lot from the discussions on here just through reading those counterarguments and certainly am not too proud to admit when i have been wrong.
- partycoder 10y ago
  Previous to this, your 20 last comments were on another thread of mine. I could argue with you, but it is just a bait to downvote replies. So you were randomly browsing HN news, and you found my comment, a non-top comment among hundreds or possibly thousands of comments, on a random post. Then, you were not looking at the author, but rather at the comment, and you decided to reply to this one in particular. I am sure what I said strictly speaking, was incorrect, but not sure if this is the least correct of the comments in this topic. Let me tell you that is unlikely enough to be considered intentional. Then, stop mixing technical responses with insults. This is an insult: > particularly when you continue to comment on technical topics you only partially understand (as seen here). Just stop making excuses. This is the last response I give you on HN. I have implemented HTTP from the ground up I have nothing to prove to you.
  - laumars 10y ago
    The last 20 posts might have been on a thread of yours (I haven't checked) but only about half of that was actually replying to you - possibly less. And some of those posts were even defending you. A decision I since regretted when you turned psycho on me and demanded I refund you karma(!!!) despite being literally the only person in that thread that defended you. This was also why I gave up on that thread and stopped replying to you). As I said before, I didn't check this post was by the same user as the other thread. I don't tend to pay much attention to user handles. Sure it probably seems a massive coincidence but coincidence is hardly proof of malicious intent. > I have implemented HTTP from the ground up I have nothing to prove to you. Then why even make such a weird statement as that? You can literally "implement HTTP from the ground up" with a shell one-liner. It still doesn't prove you understand the nuances of the HTTP protocol; let alone any have any grasp of web security (which was the real point you were discussing here when you blundered your way through HTTP protocol jargon). > I could argue with you, but it is just a bait to downvote replies. How would that even work when HN disables the option to down vote replies? Honestly, I'm not out to persecute you. You just need to chill out a little on here if you want _other people_ to stop down voting you.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

laumars 10y ago

You cannot down vote replies so it's not me who's been negative reping you. I also haven't been following you around HN nor posting personal attacks. I just said "all URLs are parameters" because your comment was weird and misleading (for reasons i elaborated in the other post i left yesterday). HN is a technical discussion forum so there will be times when people will disagree with the technical points you raise; particularly when you continue to comment on technical topics you only partially understand (as seen here). My advice to you would be to take a second to digest those counterarguments to check if they are informative rather than assuming every counterargument is a "personal attack". And if there's not enough data to understand their point then ask for clarification or an elaboration. I've learned a lot from the discussions on here just through reading those counterarguments and certainly am not too proud to admit when i have been wrong.

partycoder 10y ago
Previous to this, your 20 last comments were on another thread of mine. I could argue with you, but it is just a bait to downvote replies. So you were randomly browsing HN news, and you found my comment, a non-top comment among hundreds or possibly thousands of comments, on a random post. Then, you were not looking at the author, but rather at the comment, and you decided to reply to this one in particular. I am sure what I said strictly speaking, was incorrect, but not sure if this is the least correct of the comments in this topic. Let me tell you that is unlikely enough to be considered intentional. Then, stop mixing technical responses with insults. This is an insult: > particularly when you continue to comment on technical topics you only partially understand (as seen here). Just stop making excuses. This is the last response I give you on HN. I have implemented HTTP from the ground up I have nothing to prove to you.
- laumars 10y ago
  The last 20 posts might have been on a thread of yours (I haven't checked) but only about half of that was actually replying to you - possibly less. And some of those posts were even defending you. A decision I since regretted when you turned psycho on me and demanded I refund you karma(!!!) despite being literally the only person in that thread that defended you. This was also why I gave up on that thread and stopped replying to you). As I said before, I didn't check this post was by the same user as the other thread. I don't tend to pay much attention to user handles. Sure it probably seems a massive coincidence but coincidence is hardly proof of malicious intent. > I have implemented HTTP from the ground up I have nothing to prove to you. Then why even make such a weird statement as that? You can literally "implement HTTP from the ground up" with a shell one-liner. It still doesn't prove you understand the nuances of the HTTP protocol; let alone any have any grasp of web security (which was the real point you were discussing here when you blundered your way through HTTP protocol jargon). > I could argue with you, but it is just a bait to downvote replies. How would that even work when HN disables the option to down vote replies? Honestly, I'm not out to persecute you. You just need to chill out a little on here if you want _other people_ to stop down voting you.