3 ms·
Well, you're quite right, but I disagree that it's a problem. Snark, sarcasm and underhanded jabs are absolutely valid rhetorical techniques; and, if you don't
by to3m 9y ago
Well, you're quite right, but I disagree that it's a problem. Snark, sarcasm and underhanded jabs are absolutely valid rhetorical techniques; and, if you don't like them, there are plenty of good responses in kind, that will reflect on you far better than if simply tell on them to teacher.
In case you were having difficult guessing, I'm minded to agree with tptacek. (And not just because of my sibling comment, in which I admit that my home network is indistinguishable from that of a 90 year old technophobe who got his not-daft-but-still-technically-ignorant grandson to set it up for him.) Is the interviewee's home network, assuming they even have one, really relevant?
If they're going to be setting up a network for you, wouldn't you rather they had experience doing something significant on a professional basis, not just setting something up at home?
If they're going to be doing something else, what relevance does any of this have?
- kindfellow92 9y agoRead first paragraph after “In comments” https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html doesn’t matter if you agree, snark is not supported here. On the other it’s fine if you agree with tptacek’s intent but you were more clear and civil with your point. Tptacek’s comment comes off as pretentious and insulting, and doesn’t promote good faith discussion.
- pvg 9y agoIt's strange you're so familiar with the forum's norms and guidelines and would yet start a completely off-topic, pointless meta-subthread. Those are much worse than tptacek's fairly tame response. If you disagree with the comment, you can downvote or if you feel it's that terrible, you can flag it so it gets moderator attention. If those options aren't available yet for your account, you can just participate a little longer until they are.
- kindfellow92 9y agoThere’s enough evidence here to make a pretty good case that you are a victim of Stockholm syndrome.
- tptacek 9y agoI'm not sure what is exactly supposed to be "underhanded" about it.
- kindfellow92 9y agoIt was underhanded because you were giving a compliment but meant it to be an insult. Your reply here is willful ignorance and it’s done with malicious intent. The fact that you are being defended shows that HN is a echo chamber that ultimately supports bullies like you even if they break the rules.