3 ms·

I'm not misrepresenting the other's argument at all. I'm clarifying it.

• pvg 8y ago
  No you aren't. You don't get to decide what the other person's argument is and then rail against that. It's a pretty fundamental rule of reasonably civil discourse. I'm sure you've seen dang berate people about this but in case you haven't: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=author:dang%20quotation&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?query=author:dang%20quotation&sort=b...
  • stcredzero 8y ago
    I'm pretty clear about what is the other person's idea, and what other ideas that idea is parallel to. In that case, I'm not misstating the other person's argument. I'm clarifying the idea's implications.
    • pvg 8y ago
      Well, you were, quite blatantly, but you've now edited the comment to not do that - thanks. It seems we're in agreement on the important bit.
      • stcredzero 8y ago
        Well, you were, quite blatantly No, you were quite blatantly misreading my argument and making your argument hypocritically. but you've now edited the comment to not do that - thanks. No, it never did that. I just clarified. It seems we're in agreement on the important bit. Effectively, you are admitting you have no counter-argument, other than your willful misreading of what I was saying all along.
        • pvg 8y ago
          You edited the comment. If the end result is a less poopy comment, I'm fine with that.
          • stcredzero 8y ago
            No, you were hypocritically pushing a narrative that I meant something entirely different than what I was saying, and I took that opportunity away from you. I'm saying the same thing I always was.
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]