5 ms·

Maybe I missed that particular point but how did he get shot?

by freshfey 16y ago

marknutter 16y ago
It doesn't say
rokhayakebe 16y ago
He shot himself.
- freshfey 16y ago
  If your answer wasn't meant as a joke -> No, it says "I myself was shot" not I shot myself.
  - rokhayakebe 16y ago
    Joke? I couldn't joke about a deadly situation. I accidentally read "I shot myself". Now as a side note, I want to say to everyone who downvoted my comment without saying why, I think this is an idiot's move. Yes, I am saying it. At least if you are going to do it, give a feedback. Otherwise you haven't added anything to the conversation. And just so you know, it's not about karma. It's about you not adding anything to the conversation.
    - jholman 16y ago
      In response to your sidenote, bullshit. Whining about downvotes without "saying why" is an idiot's move. Replying to that whining (as I am doing now) might possibly be an idiot's move, I'm not sure. But voting is not an idiot's move, and lack of explanation does not make it so. Upvotes and downvotes add the same thing to the conversation: 1) They're a system by which the collective collectively modifies what comments get seen, and in what order 2) They're a system of feedback about what is a valuable contribution Neither of those contributions requires "saying why". Of course, it is true that the second function works a lot better if the voter communicates a "why", that's easy to see. But it's easy to see that the first function is served just fine by voting without comments (and indeed, since your downvoted comment was erroneous, the conversation benefited from it being removed via downvoting). Further, we all already know that some explanations of "why" distract from the conversation more than they contribute. The most-obvious example is "+1 agree" or "+1 this", or even "+1 this comment told me something I didn't know". Or, in your case, people could have commented "-1 unsubstantiated" or "-1 parent post misread FA" or something. Either way, whining about voting _really_ doesn't add to the conversation. If I had downvote ability, I'd downvoting comments that complain about downvotes. tl;dr: Downvotes without explanations are just as much a positive contribution to the conversation as upvotes.
      - rokhayakebe 16y ago
        The last I will say on the subject. Whining about downvotes without "saying why" is an idiot's move. Thank you. According to your comment I am not an idiot because I "said why" : if you are going to do it, give a feedback. Otherwise you haven't added anything to the conversation. . I cannot start to think of a world where giving someone a coin as a way of saying you are adding value is just as effective as taking away a coin from them as a way of saying you are taking away value. The way we communicate online should just be an extension of how we communicate in real life. In practice you should only be able to downvote someone because you upvoted them in the past. So in a sense you would take back what you gave them. Otherwise it is nothing short of robbery. I have never downvoted anyone, unless it was done by mistake. Maybe we are different, but I just do not see how downvotes are helpful. I respect your point, but I think it doesn't make sense.
geoffw8 16y ago
Yeah, I scrolled down hoping it would say. Remarkable none the less. Makes me very glad (scrap that, thank god) I live in the UK where carrying deadly weapons isn't seen as a right.
- gallamine 16y ago
  "I live in the UK where carrying deadly weapons isn't seen as a right." Whew! It's a good thing too ... stopping all that senseless accidental shootings from law abiding citizens. Many the criminal will take the hint. Oh wait ... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573...
  - someone_here 16y ago
    Total firearm-related death rate per 100'000 for the US: between 10.2 and 15.22. For the UK: 0.38 to 0.46 Source (and more sources): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-re...
    - iuguy 16y ago
      To be fair that's for England and Wales, not the UK. In Northern Ireland (where as far as I'm aware the gun law is the same) it's 6.82. It's interesting that England and Wales features in 7th lowest spot for death rate whereas Northern Ireland is 7th highest.
      - eftpotrm 16y ago
        OK, but a) Northern Ireland has been in a state of at best hevy terrorist activity and at worst borderline civil war in some areas for a good part of the last 40 years, and b) Relative populations: England: 51.5m Wales: 3m Northern Ireland: 1.5m So in NI we're talking about just over 1,000 deaths against E/W combined, about 200. Hence the separate treatment.
      - 16y ago

Maybe I missed that particular point but how did he get shot?

marknutter 16y ago

It doesn't say

rokhayakebe 16y ago

He shot himself.

freshfey 16y ago
If your answer wasn't meant as a joke -> No, it says "I myself was shot" not I shot myself.
- rokhayakebe 16y ago
  Joke? I couldn't joke about a deadly situation. I accidentally read "I shot myself". Now as a side note, I want to say to everyone who downvoted my comment without saying why, I think this is an idiot's move. Yes, I am saying it. At least if you are going to do it, give a feedback. Otherwise you haven't added anything to the conversation. And just so you know, it's not about karma. It's about you not adding anything to the conversation.
  - jholman 16y ago
    In response to your sidenote, bullshit. Whining about downvotes without "saying why" is an idiot's move. Replying to that whining (as I am doing now) might possibly be an idiot's move, I'm not sure. But voting is not an idiot's move, and lack of explanation does not make it so. Upvotes and downvotes add the same thing to the conversation: 1) They're a system by which the collective collectively modifies what comments get seen, and in what order 2) They're a system of feedback about what is a valuable contribution Neither of those contributions requires "saying why". Of course, it is true that the second function works a lot better if the voter communicates a "why", that's easy to see. But it's easy to see that the first function is served just fine by voting without comments (and indeed, since your downvoted comment was erroneous, the conversation benefited from it being removed via downvoting). Further, we all already know that some explanations of "why" distract from the conversation more than they contribute. The most-obvious example is "+1 agree" or "+1 this", or even "+1 this comment told me something I didn't know". Or, in your case, people could have commented "-1 unsubstantiated" or "-1 parent post misread FA" or something. Either way, whining about voting _really_ doesn't add to the conversation. If I had downvote ability, I'd downvoting comments that complain about downvotes. tl;dr: Downvotes without explanations are just as much a positive contribution to the conversation as upvotes.
    - rokhayakebe 16y ago
      The last I will say on the subject. Whining about downvotes without "saying why" is an idiot's move. Thank you. According to your comment I am not an idiot because I "said why" : if you are going to do it, give a feedback. Otherwise you haven't added anything to the conversation. . I cannot start to think of a world where giving someone a coin as a way of saying you are adding value is just as effective as taking away a coin from them as a way of saying you are taking away value. The way we communicate online should just be an extension of how we communicate in real life. In practice you should only be able to downvote someone because you upvoted them in the past. So in a sense you would take back what you gave them. Otherwise it is nothing short of robbery. I have never downvoted anyone, unless it was done by mistake. Maybe we are different, but I just do not see how downvotes are helpful. I respect your point, but I think it doesn't make sense.

geoffw8 16y ago

Yeah, I scrolled down hoping it would say. Remarkable none the less. Makes me very glad (scrap that, thank god) I live in the UK where carrying deadly weapons isn't seen as a right.

gallamine 16y ago
"I live in the UK where carrying deadly weapons isn't seen as a right." Whew! It's a good thing too ... stopping all that senseless accidental shootings from law abiding citizens. Many the criminal will take the hint. Oh wait ... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573...
- someone_here 16y ago
  Total firearm-related death rate per 100'000 for the US: between 10.2 and 15.22. For the UK: 0.38 to 0.46 Source (and more sources): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-re...
  - iuguy 16y ago
    To be fair that's for England and Wales, not the UK. In Northern Ireland (where as far as I'm aware the gun law is the same) it's 6.82. It's interesting that England and Wales features in 7th lowest spot for death rate whereas Northern Ireland is 7th highest.
    - eftpotrm 16y ago
      OK, but a) Northern Ireland has been in a state of at best hevy terrorist activity and at worst borderline civil war in some areas for a good part of the last 40 years, and b) Relative populations: England: 51.5m Wales: 3m Northern Ireland: 1.5m So in NI we're talking about just over 1,000 deaths against E/W combined, about 200. Hence the separate treatment.
    - 16y ago