3 ms·
> I'm sorry maybe you could RTFA. The parent's concern doesn't appear to be whether there was more quoted in the article, but whether the article elided part o
by dllthomas 9y ago
> I'm sorry maybe you could RTFA.
The parent's concern doesn't appear to be whether there was more quoted in the article, but whether the article elided part of the quote as it was originally given. You appear to recognize this in the second half of your comment, so I'm not sure why you conclude that the parent hasn't read the article.
Even if you've so concluded,
> Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."
from https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- undersuit 9y agoYep I kinda wish I could take back the RTFA part, still they could have gone back to the article and searched the page with Ctrl+F just like I did and discovered the full quote. Then they wouldn't have to submit an easily answered question to HN and could have gone on to question the authenticity of the article and it would have been an entirely different comment.
- dllthomas 9y agoI think at this point we're talking past each other a bit. As I read the comment in question, the concern was not whether the (article -> comment) reproduction was faithful, but about the original (speech -> article) reproduction. That's not an unreasonable question to carry some skepticism about in the general case, and it's not something that checking the article can answer. I agree that the cited reason for increased skepticism in this case - the insertion of ", said ..., " - isn't actually cause for increased skepticism.