3 ms·

> Show me the part of the memo that requires it? you are the one that suggested the memo said things that it didn't. What, exactly does the memo say in your op

> Show me the part of the memo that requires it? you are the one that suggested the memo said things that it didn't. What, exactly does the memo say in your opinion? Because so far I hear you complain about all kinds of things it allegedly doesn't say, but I haven't heard you explain what it does say. I understand that's the semantic game most alt-righters love to play, but c'mon, if you want me to take you seriously at least argue something instead of just saying "no, didn't say so."

Chris2048 9y ago
Oh I see, I'm an "alt-righter" now? Presumably part of the down-voting brigade from Breitbart you assumed to exist. Sorry, but I'm not doing your work for you. You made false claims, burden on you is to back them up, or otherwise rescind your claims. I've asked you to quote, or cite the memo, and you haven't - now you want me to instead?
- dguaraglia 9y ago
  The burden is on you to prove I've made false claims. Again, you keep saying I said something wrong and yet never point out what. The moment I ask you to point out what, you just scurry away saying "I'm not gonna do your work". Seems to me like you don't have a point to make.
  - Chris2048 9y ago
    > The burden is on you to prove I've made false claim Holy-shit. Ok, I'm calling you out as a troll. Enough is enough.
    - dguaraglia 9y ago
      Nice cop out. That's fine, I'm tired of going back and forth with you and so far you haven't brought up a single point, just keep accusing me of misrepresentation and saying I'm supposed to prove wrong something you didn't ever define. I'm calling you out as an alt-righter with nothing better to do than defend gender stereotyping. Enough is enough.
      - dang 9y ago
        You've been using HN primarily for ideological battle too, and that's an abuse of the site regardless of who does it or which side they're on. I realize these threads have been little other than that, but that doesn't make it ok to break HN's rules, and some of the many personal attacks in your comments ("Yes, really, you have no fucking shame") are beyond the pale, regardless of how right you are or feel you are. Plenty of other users are arguing for the same positions as you without stooping to this level or degrading the site so badly. Given that HN is supposed to be a place for the gratification of intellectual curiosity, not the smiting of enemies, we have to moderate the site rather proactively when people turn it into a battlefield. It has been quite the battlefield of late, but you seem to be one of the users making this worse, so would you please not do that anymore? The test we use as moderators is: does this account use HN primarily for political or ideological battle? The key word is primarily. A certain amount of political argument is ok, but if it turns into the main use of the site, that's an abuse. You've commented on non-political topics on HN before, but frankly I had to look a long way back in your account's history to find any. That's a problem. Most importantly, we ban accounts that do personal attacks, so no more personal attacks, please.
        dguaraglia 9y ago
        Sure thing. The whole thing was getting way out of hand anyway. Next time the topic comes out, I'll try to steer away from it (I've been flagging the posts regarding this trainwreck of a story already.)
        dang 9y ago
        Thank you!
    - dang 9y ago
      You've posted something like a hundred comments in a row engaging in flamewar and ideological battle on this site, after agreeing not to do that when I took the rate limit off your account. What do you think we should do when people promise to follow the rules and then don't? I realize these threads have been wretched trainwrecks but it looks like you've done as much as anyone to make them so. I'm putting the rate limit back on your account, and if you continue to abuse HN by either (a) using it primarily for political and ideological battle (b) stooping to incivility and tedious tit-for-tats, we will ban you.
      - Chris2048 9y ago
        > after agreeing not to do that What defines a "battle" or "flamewar"? There are no rules that clarify this. A tit-for-tat would be if I were as uncivil, but I gave a lot of good faith before opting out.

Chris2048 9y ago

Oh I see, I'm an "alt-righter" now? Presumably part of the down-voting brigade from Breitbart you assumed to exist. Sorry, but I'm not doing your work for you. You made false claims, burden on you is to back them up, or otherwise rescind your claims. I've asked you to quote, or cite the memo, and you haven't - now you want me to instead?

dguaraglia 9y ago
The burden is on you to prove I've made false claims. Again, you keep saying I said something wrong and yet never point out what. The moment I ask you to point out what, you just scurry away saying "I'm not gonna do your work". Seems to me like you don't have a point to make.
- Chris2048 9y ago
  > The burden is on you to prove I've made false claim Holy-shit. Ok, I'm calling you out as a troll. Enough is enough.
  - dguaraglia 9y ago
    Nice cop out. That's fine, I'm tired of going back and forth with you and so far you haven't brought up a single point, just keep accusing me of misrepresentation and saying I'm supposed to prove wrong something you didn't ever define. I'm calling you out as an alt-righter with nothing better to do than defend gender stereotyping. Enough is enough.
    - dang 9y ago
      You've been using HN primarily for ideological battle too, and that's an abuse of the site regardless of who does it or which side they're on. I realize these threads have been little other than that, but that doesn't make it ok to break HN's rules, and some of the many personal attacks in your comments ("Yes, really, you have no fucking shame") are beyond the pale, regardless of how right you are or feel you are. Plenty of other users are arguing for the same positions as you without stooping to this level or degrading the site so badly. Given that HN is supposed to be a place for the gratification of intellectual curiosity, not the smiting of enemies, we have to moderate the site rather proactively when people turn it into a battlefield. It has been quite the battlefield of late, but you seem to be one of the users making this worse, so would you please not do that anymore? The test we use as moderators is: does this account use HN primarily for political or ideological battle? The key word is primarily. A certain amount of political argument is ok, but if it turns into the main use of the site, that's an abuse. You've commented on non-political topics on HN before, but frankly I had to look a long way back in your account's history to find any. That's a problem. Most importantly, we ban accounts that do personal attacks, so no more personal attacks, please.
      - dguaraglia 9y ago
        Sure thing. The whole thing was getting way out of hand anyway. Next time the topic comes out, I'll try to steer away from it (I've been flagging the posts regarding this trainwreck of a story already.)
        dang 9y ago
        Thank you!
  - dang 9y ago
    You've posted something like a hundred comments in a row engaging in flamewar and ideological battle on this site, after agreeing not to do that when I took the rate limit off your account. What do you think we should do when people promise to follow the rules and then don't? I realize these threads have been wretched trainwrecks but it looks like you've done as much as anyone to make them so. I'm putting the rate limit back on your account, and if you continue to abuse HN by either (a) using it primarily for political and ideological battle (b) stooping to incivility and tedious tit-for-tats, we will ban you.
    - Chris2048 9y ago
      > after agreeing not to do that What defines a "battle" or "flamewar"? There are no rules that clarify this. A tit-for-tat would be if I were as uncivil, but I gave a lot of good faith before opting out.