4 ms·
✓ Old story (October 6th). ✓ Original article omits context. ✓ US Constitution does not cover the British. ✓ Already covered. http://news.ycombinator.com/ite
by jws 16y ago
✓ Old story (October 6th).
✓ Original article omits context.
✓ US Constitution does not cover the British.
✓ Already covered. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1760700 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1760700
No discussion required.
- jws 16y agoDownvotes, what on earth for? Is it the checkmarks? Edit: not meaning to complain, I was trying to sort out if it was the Unicode, the tone, the list format, or the "no need to discuss" which is probably a bit rude. I was hoping to make a quickly read mark that would let people know HN had already been over this ground and there was nothing new in the article, but I failed miserably.
- robg 16y agoIt's worse to complain. Just point to the original thread and everyone will be happy.
- talbina 16y agoWord War II: ✓ Old story (September 1, 1939). ✓ Thousands of articles likely omitting full context. ✓ US Constitution does not cover the British. ✓ Already covered. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1507526 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1507526 No discussion required.
- eru 16y agoI agree without irony.
- marze 16y agoIt is an ongoing story, the man is still imprisoned. If he had been released and nothing further had happened, maybe you could say "No discussion required".
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]