3 ms·
Unfortunately you are quite wrong. Fortunately by the rules you apparently play by, I need not provide any evidence or explanation to such a declaration, just
by sophacles 16y ago
Unfortunately you are quite wrong.
Fortunately by the rules you apparently play by, I need not provide any evidence or explanation to such a declaration, just the smug empty statement itself.
Edit: the original parent said (from memory, maybe not 100% accurate): "Sorry Jason, you don't know what you are talking about here." I wouldn't be so snarky about the edited parent.
- thinkcomp 16y agoI made the edit before you posted, though I guess the statement is still smug and empty in your view. All the evidence you need is in my profile or pretty easy to find on Google...whereas I don't even know who you are because your profile is blank.
- sophacles 16y agoYou made the edit while I was posting. The edited post is different, like I have mentioned. My reply was to the original. It's a classic concurrency problem. A = thinkcomp, B = me: A posts A starts editing (1) B starts replying (2) A finishes editing (and sees no reply) B finishes replying (and sees edit) B edits his post * (1) and (2) can be reversed for this point to be the same Based on this sequence, there it is reasonable for you to think I was replying to your edited post. It is not the case tho, please take my word for it. HN provides no way for me to know that you are editing as I write. As for profile etc, you are the one making the claim, it is your responsibility to present qualifying references if you want me to think your statements are valid, not my job to chase down the source of every 2 sentence comment on HN.