5 ms·
Even that article lists that definition as an "understandable" one and then explicitly phrases the subsequent commentary as the author's "interpretation". It se
by TallGuyShort 7y ago
Even that article lists that definition as an "understandable" one and then explicitly phrases the subsequent commentary as the author's "interpretation". It seems like you're looking for a reason to be a victim of the wording used in the article.
- throwanem 7y agoIt seems like you’re looking for reasons to ignore the possibility that there’s a useful distinction to be made between the two terms. That seems like a more interesting discussion to have than any involving ad hominem such as “you’re looking for a reason to be a victim”.
- TallGuyShort 7y agoYour own citation doesn't support your own argument
- throwanem 7y agoThat interpretations are of significance suffices to imply that no prescriptive definition is universally acknowledged to exist.
- TallGuyShort 7y agoSo you commented on an article disputing the use of a term with no universally acknowledged definition and when someone disagreed with you you posted an article that includes THEIR definition as a decent example. Bravo. You're kind of proving my point here.
- dang 7y ago> It seems like you're looking for a reason to be a victim That crosses into personal attack. Please don't do that in arguments here, regardless of how wrong someone is or it feels they are. And could you please not post in the flamewar style to HN generally? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20473318 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20473318 is an example. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html