4 ms·

Your apparent judgement is that the pilots taking part in protests and talking about protests to passengers are a safety issue. Otherwise, nothing you said make

by raquo 7y ago

Your apparent judgement is that the pilots taking part in protests and talking about protests to passengers are a safety issue. Otherwise, nothing you said makes sense. This is the Economist sentence that you're commenting on: > When the Chinese aviation authority, absurdly, accused the airline of imperilling safety because its employees had joined the protests If you didn't believe that pilot protests / speech is a safety concern, you wouldn't disagree at the use of "absurdly" in that sentence, and then wouldn't double down on that by giving an example of an incident which you think imperiled safety. Otherwise, if you didn't agree with those fake safety concerns, there is nothing surprising about the usage of "absurd" by the Economist.

theseadroid 7y ago
I said in the later comment that the Economist is in no position to judge. Can I be surprised that they made the judgement? Or my surprise has to be only about whether the safety concern is real or not? Let me make it crystal clear: I didn't necessarily believe that pilot protests / speech is a safety concern but I disagree at the use of "absurdly" in that sentence, because personally I think the Economist has no expertise to judge.
- raquo 7y ago
  You don't "necessarily" believe, but provide an argument and a link to justify that belief (however ineffectively)? Have enough courage to own the ideas you propagate, this is pathetic.
  - theseadroid 7y ago
    My original links' parent's parent: >The pilot is not politicized just because some people employed by her company are protesting. My original links' parent: >It could be disinformation, but I've read that some Cathay pilots and cabin crew were reprimanded for participating in the protests. I was providing some fact from a relatively reliable and pro-HK reference to those commenters of which they are not aware, and has been grossed over by the Economist article. To other HN readers, I'm sorry to drag you into this information sparse comment that concerns only my intention. I'm just not into being accused of something I didn't do. To raquo, there's a guideline to avoid name calling[1]. Or maybe you think I don't deserve that kind of dignity? Anyway your personal attack is effective. I'll stop replying to you. Have a nice weekend. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - raquo 7y ago
      In your original comment the second sentence is obviously reading as justification for your first sentence and for safety concerns mentioned by both parent and grandparent comments. If as you say you intended to reference different, less related parts of parent and grandparent comments, that's just poor communication. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you don't own up to that either.

by raquo 7y ago

theseadroid 7y ago

I said in the later comment that the Economist is in no position to judge. Can I be surprised that they made the judgement? Or my surprise has to be only about whether the safety concern is real or not? Let me make it crystal clear: I didn't necessarily believe that pilot protests / speech is a safety concern but I disagree at the use of "absurdly" in that sentence, because personally I think the Economist has no expertise to judge.

raquo 7y ago
You don't "necessarily" believe, but provide an argument and a link to justify that belief (however ineffectively)? Have enough courage to own the ideas you propagate, this is pathetic.
- theseadroid 7y ago
  My original links' parent's parent: >The pilot is not politicized just because some people employed by her company are protesting. My original links' parent: >It could be disinformation, but I've read that some Cathay pilots and cabin crew were reprimanded for participating in the protests. I was providing some fact from a relatively reliable and pro-HK reference to those commenters of which they are not aware, and has been grossed over by the Economist article. To other HN readers, I'm sorry to drag you into this information sparse comment that concerns only my intention. I'm just not into being accused of something I didn't do. To raquo, there's a guideline to avoid name calling[1]. Or maybe you think I don't deserve that kind of dignity? Anyway your personal attack is effective. I'll stop replying to you. Have a nice weekend. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - raquo 7y ago
    In your original comment the second sentence is obviously reading as justification for your first sentence and for safety concerns mentioned by both parent and grandparent comments. If as you say you intended to reference different, less related parts of parent and grandparent comments, that's just poor communication. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you don't own up to that either.