4 ms·

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

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.

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.