4 ms·

NH is weird again with the downvotes. I see nothing wrong with your comment or linked source.

elliekelly 8y ago
Some anecdata: my work computer is logged into HN with a username thats gender-neutral. I'm about 3 times more likely to be downvoted on this account. I've also noticed a lot more replies on this account tend to flat out tell me I'm wrong or don't know what I'm talking about (my favorite was the time someone told me it's against HN's rules to be dumb in the comments) while replies on my other account tend to be more constructive ("have you considered XYZ..."). I've been thinking about getting both sets of comment replies and running them through Watson's tone analyzer or something but I'm not sure any good would come of it. And of course, it's entirely possible I'm just a complete moron when I'm on this computer.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- seattle_spring 8y ago
  You defended a NaturalNews / Infowars offspring site, but think you were downvoted because your username is female?
  - detaro 8y ago
    What? Because the original site is "bad" providing a better source is somehow not acceptable? After you've complained you can't find a better source?
    - seattle_spring 8y ago
      Uh no, saying a pseudoscience site is "based in fact" is not acceptable, champ.
      - detaro 8y ago
        So which of the facts from the sources do you disagree with? You do not get to say "this site is pseudoscience" and then ignore claims that it got a specific thing more or less right if people provide sources, or downvote people for doing so. So, what's your evidence that the claim "China set to introduce low glyphosate residue limits in food imports" is not based in fact?
      - elliekelly 8y ago
        What part of "China is introducing Glyphosate MRLs" is pseudoscience, specifically? And for that matter, what part isn't a fact?
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        seattle_spring 8y ago
        The source is pseudoscience, not every single line that they write. Go look at their other articles. Go look at the crap they sell.
        elliekelly 8y ago
        >The source is pseudoscience... I agreed with you that it's a shit source. > ... not every single line that they write. Exactly. I pointed out that this particular headline was based in fact and provided a reliable source for that fact and pointed out where the "facts" stated by the article differed from the reliable source I provided. I fail to understand the egregious offense I've allegedly committed.

Some anecdata: my work computer is logged into HN with a username thats gender-neutral. I'm about 3 times more likely to be downvoted on this account. I've also noticed a lot more replies on this account tend to flat out tell me I'm wrong or don't know what I'm talking about (my favorite was the time someone told me it's against HN's rules to be dumb in the comments) while replies on my other account tend to be more constructive ("have you considered XYZ..."). I've been thinking about getting both sets of comment replies and running them through Watson's tone analyzer or something but I'm not sure any good would come of it. And of course, it's entirely possible I'm just a complete moron when I'm on this computer.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
seattle_spring 8y ago
You defended a NaturalNews / Infowars offspring site, but think you were downvoted because your username is female?
- detaro 8y ago
  What? Because the original site is "bad" providing a better source is somehow not acceptable? After you've complained you can't find a better source?
  - seattle_spring 8y ago
    Uh no, saying a pseudoscience site is "based in fact" is not acceptable, champ.
    - detaro 8y ago
      So which of the facts from the sources do you disagree with? You do not get to say "this site is pseudoscience" and then ignore claims that it got a specific thing more or less right if people provide sources, or downvote people for doing so. So, what's your evidence that the claim "China set to introduce low glyphosate residue limits in food imports" is not based in fact?
    - elliekelly 8y ago
      What part of "China is introducing Glyphosate MRLs" is pseudoscience, specifically? And for that matter, what part isn't a fact?
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - seattle_spring 8y ago
        The source is pseudoscience, not every single line that they write. Go look at their other articles. Go look at the crap they sell.
        elliekelly 8y ago
        >The source is pseudoscience... I agreed with you that it's a shit source. > ... not every single line that they write. Exactly. I pointed out that this particular headline was based in fact and provided a reliable source for that fact and pointed out where the "facts" stated by the article differed from the reliable source I provided. I fail to understand the egregious offense I've allegedly committed.