4 ms·

I followed your previous link. The link immediately above is to a newer post (14 minute ago) than the one from you to which I was replying. No time travel on HN

I followed your previous link. The link immediately above is to a newer post (14 minute ago) than the one from you to which I was replying. No time travel on HN. "Scam" (glad you looked it up) means "a dishonest scheme; swindle", i.e., someone was deceived. Whom did we deceive? You keep abusing it to mean extortion or theft, while admitting users can block without compensating anyone. Reminder: we don't put ads on pages unless the particular publisher partners and the user agrees. No one is deceived. Since our baseline mode is just blocking, no one is owed, either.

lern_too_spel 8y ago
> I followed your previous link. The link immediately above is to a newer post (14 minute ago) than the one from you to which I was replying. The link above is my response to your comments combined into the sibling thread. Once again, go there and respond.
- BrendanEich 8y ago
  I read every one of your comments. When you link to something I was supposed to have read before the prior reply from me to which you are responding, it's customary to link to the earlier in thread, or root of subthread -- not to your latest. As for "dense", you still don't employ "scam" by its meaning, even after citing that meaning -- and you contradict yourself about users' right to block ads and right to donate. If users do not owe publishers anything in lieu of ad blocking, but we help users anonymously route tokens to publishers anyway, who is scammed? Answer directly.
  - lern_too_spel 8y ago
    The link was for the comment to respond to. This argument about commenting custom is completely uninteresting and off-topic. I'm leaving this as a courtesy, so you can try to think from someone else's perspective. I sincerely hope it will help you with other problems in your life.
    - BrendanEich 8y ago
      You're the one who complained about my replying here not there; I'm happy to drop thread etiquette but your way has nested things awfully deep, and on two subthreads. Better to stick to one, and answer the question: who is scammed? You still have not said.
    - dang 8y ago
      This is the kind of comment we ban accounts for. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and don't post like this to HN in the future, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. Flamewars like this one are the kind of thing we don't want on HN, so please don't perpetuate them.

lern_too_spel 8y ago

> I followed your previous link. The link immediately above is to a newer post (14 minute ago) than the one from you to which I was replying. The link above is my response to your comments combined into the sibling thread. Once again, go there and respond.

BrendanEich 8y ago
I read every one of your comments. When you link to something I was supposed to have read before the prior reply from me to which you are responding, it's customary to link to the earlier in thread, or root of subthread -- not to your latest. As for "dense", you still don't employ "scam" by its meaning, even after citing that meaning -- and you contradict yourself about users' right to block ads and right to donate. If users do not owe publishers anything in lieu of ad blocking, but we help users anonymously route tokens to publishers anyway, who is scammed? Answer directly.
- lern_too_spel 8y ago
  The link was for the comment to respond to. This argument about commenting custom is completely uninteresting and off-topic. I'm leaving this as a courtesy, so you can try to think from someone else's perspective. I sincerely hope it will help you with other problems in your life.
  - BrendanEich 8y ago
    You're the one who complained about my replying here not there; I'm happy to drop thread etiquette but your way has nested things awfully deep, and on two subthreads. Better to stick to one, and answer the question: who is scammed? You still have not said.
  - dang 8y ago
    This is the kind of comment we ban accounts for. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and don't post like this to HN in the future, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. Flamewars like this one are the kind of thing we don't want on HN, so please don't perpetuate them.