2 ms·
You seem very interested in this WDS concept. In fact, I would say it is interesting. But I think citing "please reply to the argument instead of calling names"
by jmilloy 7y ago
You seem very interested in this WDS concept. In fact, I would say it is interesting. But I think citing "please reply to the argument instead of calling names" will be less confusing. Here, calling names is short-hand for criticising/analysing the individual instead of the argument.
To my eyes, the collectively specific hn analysis of Wolfram may be interesting, but it is not relevant to moderation of the content. At the same time, succeeding at moderating away the content means that we can't see it, so it can't actually be interesting or even visible to anyone but you.
- dang 7y agoI'm happy to answer but don't understand. I'm confused about which specific things fall in which buckets you use the words 'interesting', 'the argument', 'moderation', and 'the content'. I do sometimes post out of personal interest or for fun—not often, but it's an old habit. My comment upthread was definitely one of those. If it were just moderation I would have said something more procedural.