4 ms·
I heard you the first time. You're missing my point. You are arguing about domain squatters in general. This article is not about domain squatters in general.
by enonevets 6y ago
I heard you the first time. You're missing my point. You are arguing about domain squatters in general.
This article is not about domain squatters in general. It's about the owner of quirk.uk leading to the Op making a generalize statement about domain squatters. The two are not equal.
Lets say someone posted to HN that Google banned them. Without Google's side of the story, and questioning if there are other details, we take the author's word and assume Google is the bad guy. But it turns out the author was a spammer and Google had good reason to ban the guy. But you don't know that and don't have context for that because none of that was posted in the author's post. Do you just jump the bandwagon and start attacking Google in general ignoring the point the author is making?
The same applies here. It's one thing to have a discussion about domain squatters (this is not it). It's an entirely different argument when this is about Op and the owner of a specific domain, leading him to make a generalized statement that none of us can even confirm is true about the owner or not.
- teh_klev 6y agoI hate to break HN guidelines, but I think you need to re-read the article.
- enonevets 6y agoI just did. At the very top it says: `I wanted to register quirk.uk, but arsehole domain squatters are getting in the way and making that almost impossible.` Aside from the fact that the domain is now available for sale, it does nothing to prove whether the owner originally got it to squat on it or they got it with a different intended purpose, or if they are using it at all aside from the intention of _now_ selling it. At minimum I think we're discussing two different points on the same post here. But this is going in circles so I'm fine with leaving this be.