2 ms·
That's a separate topic. And it doesn't mean you should ignore your debts as the other poster was saying, because that's also unethical and possibly fraudulent.
by manigandham 7y ago
That's a separate topic. And it doesn't mean you should ignore your debts as the other poster was saying, because that's also unethical and possibly fraudulent.
- perl4ever 7y agoNobody should ignore their debts. I think maybe you should just ignore whoever you think was suggesting that, because that's obviously impractical/self destructive and not worth debating.
- manigandham 7y agoThat was the original comment that started this whole thread. Maybe you should reply to them instead of telling me what not to do hours after the conversation is over.
- perl4ever 7y agoIt no longer says the same thing, apparently. No point in arguing with them about what it (allegedly) used to say "hours later".
- manigandham 7y agoAgain, the conversation is over. You arrived well after the other poster and I left our replies, only to add a tangent, seemingly accuse me of lying, and to tell me not to leave those replies in the first place? That's very strange.
- perl4ever 7y agoThanks for replying again and telling me the conversation is over. I wasn't accusing you of lying, it's just that I can't see what used to be in that post. HN allows people to respond to things an hour or two after they are posted. I don't think that is extreme behavior and we've both done it in this thread.
- manigandham 7y ago> "I think maybe you should just ignore whoever" "No point in arguing with them" By the time you said this, there were already 3 post/reply loops between that person and myself. I don't see the purpose of telling me to ignore them, especially when you don't have the original context of their edited comments and are downstream of the conversation that already happened on the exact topic you say should be ignored.