4 ms·

This doesn't really answer your parent's question, does it? If you use TFA or RTFA make sure you do it properly, it's rude.

resdirector 16y ago
Agreed. Not only does it not answer my question, it's against the HN guidelines: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
- swombat 16y ago
  How is it against the HN guidelines?
  - resdirector 16y ago
    Okay, it's not really too much of a big a deal, but the way I read it, it was "TFA" as in "read the fucking article". I thought "come on, dude, it was a valid question": Julian, in his article, doesn't actually mention the source, just some vague reference to an unnamed blogger. Given the seriousness of the kidnap threats, I wanted to find out if it was a credible claim. E.g., I wanted to see the original source and find out (a) who said it (b) what was actually said and (c) ascertain how credible a threat it was. So when I read "TFA", I thought "come on, dude, that's a bit patronizing, it's a valid question, fair shake of the sauce bottle, mate". I think a few other people thought the same way, too. Personally I believe that there are no stupid questions (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1853740 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1853740) and we shouldn't diss questions stupid or otherwise.
michael_dorfman 16y ago
Yes, it does. Explicitly and clearly. With a direct quotation. What more could you ask for?
- crocowhile 16y ago
  For instance jacquesm answer? It's way more informative, it contains the actual answer to the question, is not arrogantly witty. Enough?
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- resdirector 16y ago
  What more could you ask for? The exact source. There's a world of difference between Julian's assertion of "a US blogger" versus a link to the original source (which jacquesm supplied). Perhaps we're living in the wikipedia generation, but it's quite concerning that people on Hacker News automatically consider assertions to be as credible as original sources! I mean, seriously, Julian makes a statement about how his son has received kidnapping threats, and people just swallow it without questioning? I'm not saying that I think Julian is lying (and having seen jacquesm's link, it seems like he wasn't), but I think it's incredibly important for anyone wishing to critically analyse current affairs to view all claims, on all sides of the debate, with a skeptical mind.

resdirector 16y ago

Agreed. Not only does it not answer my question, it's against the HN guidelines: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

swombat 16y ago
How is it against the HN guidelines?
- resdirector 16y ago
  Okay, it's not really too much of a big a deal, but the way I read it, it was "TFA" as in "read the fucking article". I thought "come on, dude, it was a valid question": Julian, in his article, doesn't actually mention the source, just some vague reference to an unnamed blogger. Given the seriousness of the kidnap threats, I wanted to find out if it was a credible claim. E.g., I wanted to see the original source and find out (a) who said it (b) what was actually said and (c) ascertain how credible a threat it was. So when I read "TFA", I thought "come on, dude, that's a bit patronizing, it's a valid question, fair shake of the sauce bottle, mate". I think a few other people thought the same way, too. Personally I believe that there are no stupid questions (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1853740 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1853740) and we shouldn't diss questions stupid or otherwise.

michael_dorfman 16y ago

Yes, it does. Explicitly and clearly. With a direct quotation. What more could you ask for?

crocowhile 16y ago
For instance jacquesm answer? It's way more informative, it contains the actual answer to the question, is not arrogantly witty. Enough?
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
resdirector 16y ago
What more could you ask for? The exact source. There's a world of difference between Julian's assertion of "a US blogger" versus a link to the original source (which jacquesm supplied). Perhaps we're living in the wikipedia generation, but it's quite concerning that people on Hacker News automatically consider assertions to be as credible as original sources! I mean, seriously, Julian makes a statement about how his son has received kidnapping threats, and people just swallow it without questioning? I'm not saying that I think Julian is lying (and having seen jacquesm's link, it seems like he wasn't), but I think it's incredibly important for anyone wishing to critically analyse current affairs to view all claims, on all sides of the debate, with a skeptical mind.