3 ms·

Actually this is probably pointless to post on HN since I doubt anyone here cares about climate change beyond their own personal inconvenience

asdkjh345fd 6y ago
You're not making any sense. How is people who threaten to kill poor people, continuing to threaten to kill poor people, turning the tables? I don't want to turn the tables, I don't want to threaten climate hysterics, I just want them to stop being evil.
- dang 6y ago
  We've banned this account. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23083315 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23083315 Would you please not create accounts to break HN's guidelines with? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - asdkjh345fd 6y ago
    Well, since I don't know what guideline I broke, and you refuse to tell me, I guess the obvious answer is no.
    - dang 6y ago
      The guidelines your comment broke include: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." "Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say." I'd never refuse to tell you, or anybody, anything you sincerely want to know about how to use HN as intended. You do have a long history of breaking the rules egregiously with many accounts, and it isn't the best use of resources to explain the same things over and over in such cases. If you'd like to change, though, that would be quite different and we'd be happy to help.
      - asdkjh345fd 6y ago
        This is at least the 5th time I have asked you directly, and it is the first time you have replied. So yes, you would refuse to tell me. I do not see how you could interpret any of my posts as breaking the first two, and it is very obvious that you single me out because you want to control the narrative in regards to the last two. How is "we should kill everyone who doesn't believe in the climate hoax" not flamebait? How is it substantive, thoughtful or new? But suggesting that maybe murdering people because they aren't brainwashed is wrong, that's the real problem with modern discourse right?

asdkjh345fd 6y ago

You're not making any sense. How is people who threaten to kill poor people, continuing to threaten to kill poor people, turning the tables? I don't want to turn the tables, I don't want to threaten climate hysterics, I just want them to stop being evil.

dang 6y ago
We've banned this account. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23083315 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23083315 Would you please not create accounts to break HN's guidelines with? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- asdkjh345fd 6y ago
  Well, since I don't know what guideline I broke, and you refuse to tell me, I guess the obvious answer is no.
  - dang 6y ago
    The guidelines your comment broke include: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." "Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say." I'd never refuse to tell you, or anybody, anything you sincerely want to know about how to use HN as intended. You do have a long history of breaking the rules egregiously with many accounts, and it isn't the best use of resources to explain the same things over and over in such cases. If you'd like to change, though, that would be quite different and we'd be happy to help.
    - asdkjh345fd 6y ago
      This is at least the 5th time I have asked you directly, and it is the first time you have replied. So yes, you would refuse to tell me. I do not see how you could interpret any of my posts as breaking the first two, and it is very obvious that you single me out because you want to control the narrative in regards to the last two. How is "we should kill everyone who doesn't believe in the climate hoax" not flamebait? How is it substantive, thoughtful or new? But suggesting that maybe murdering people because they aren't brainwashed is wrong, that's the real problem with modern discourse right?