5 ms·

Before people engage with this gent I would point them to his recent conversations here. Many people, at length, have tried to engage and explain to him the imp

Before people engage with this gent I would point them to his recent conversations here. Many people, at length, have tried to engage and explain to him the import of these proceedings in good faith. He was provided reputable links many times, which he deemed "conspiracy theories", refusing to engage in the facts within. A significant portion of his recent history, in fact, is people begging him to read the facts; his replies come in the form "you Assange conspiracists ..." I don't want to break HN rules on calling people out, but the above are straight facts that people really ought to be aware of before trying with this guy again. It astounds me that people are putting Chomsky, Hersh, Pilger, Ellsberg, etc, who have all made dire warnings about this extraordinary case, in the box of "Assange conspiracists" - and getting away with it.

foldr 6y ago
You're mischaracterizing my recent post history and attacking me personally rather than what I'm saying. I'm not a mod, but yes, I'd say that is against the guidelines.
- dang 6y ago
  I've given the users attacking you a thorough scolding for breaking the site guidelines, but you've also been breaking the site guidelines by using this site for flamewar, by posting excessively on this issue and dropping swipes like "you Assange conspiracists" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24408007 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24408007). It's not surprising that you provoked this sort of reaction from others on the opposite side of the issue from you. That's not cool, and if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to using this site as intended, we'd appreciate it. To use HN as intended means primarily posting thoughtful, substantive comments on topics of intellectual curiosity. Internet polemics are tedious and nasty, and that gets truer as the topic gets hotter and more sensational. Assange threads, for example, already years ago became repetitive to the point of utter pointlessness. Nobody's convincing anybody—people are just beating each other with the same talking points over and over. If that's the game you want to play on the internet, please do it somewhere else.
  - foldr 6y ago
    There's some justice in what you say, and I'll do as you request. But you engage in victim blaming when you suggest that anything I've posted could reasonably have generated the 'reaction' of being accused of being a paid shill of some kind. Especially when, as you point out, this allegation is obviously false. A swipe, ill-judged as it may be, is not in the same league as a near-libellous and utterly false accusation. In this case, the person who 'reacted' isn't even the person at whom the swipe was directed, but someone who decided to trawl through my post history to dig up dirt (as they saw it).
    - dang 6y ago
      I didn't suggest that. On the contrary—that's why I scolded the others for doing it.
      - foldr 6y ago
        That's how I interpreted "It's not surprising that you provoked...That's not cool". Thanks for clarifying.
hanselot 6y ago
Almost leans some credence to the theory that disinformation agents lurk and astroturf here actively.
- mlthoughts2018 6y ago
  Absolutely. The way the same comments are rapid-fire added to these threads every time is deeply suspicious and a great cause for concern. This should be one of the top comments, it’s not reasonable to disagree with this worry given the commenter behavior on this thread and all the previous iterations.
  - foldr 6y ago
    Same offer to you. Call me and lets talk about it, if you really think I am an agent of some kind. I find it worrying that trust is breaking down to this extent. Even if we disagree strongly, perhaps I can at least persuade you that my opinions are my own.
    - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
      I don’t think you’re an agent, but I do think you’re astroturfing.
      - foldr 6y ago
        Here's Wikipedia's definition of astroturfing: "Astroturfing is the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g., political, advertising, religious or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by grassroots participants." Are you saying that I'm an agent of some larger organization and not revealing this? If not, what exactly do you mean by 'astroturfing'? And why will you not take me up on my offer to talk about this? Does it not concern you that you may be making a false accusation? It's cowardly and rude to make these kind of accusations without even giving the accused person any kind of opportunity to present you with evidence to the contrary.
dang 6y ago
You can't attack another user like this on HN, regardless of how wrong they are or how strongly you disagree with their views. It's pure poison to community, we ban accounts that do this, and the site guidelines make it clear that it's not ok. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and don't do this again.

foldr 6y ago

You're mischaracterizing my recent post history and attacking me personally rather than what I'm saying. I'm not a mod, but yes, I'd say that is against the guidelines.

dang 6y ago
I've given the users attacking you a thorough scolding for breaking the site guidelines, but you've also been breaking the site guidelines by using this site for flamewar, by posting excessively on this issue and dropping swipes like "you Assange conspiracists" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24408007 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24408007). It's not surprising that you provoked this sort of reaction from others on the opposite side of the issue from you. That's not cool, and if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to using this site as intended, we'd appreciate it. To use HN as intended means primarily posting thoughtful, substantive comments on topics of intellectual curiosity. Internet polemics are tedious and nasty, and that gets truer as the topic gets hotter and more sensational. Assange threads, for example, already years ago became repetitive to the point of utter pointlessness. Nobody's convincing anybody—people are just beating each other with the same talking points over and over. If that's the game you want to play on the internet, please do it somewhere else.
- foldr 6y ago
  There's some justice in what you say, and I'll do as you request. But you engage in victim blaming when you suggest that anything I've posted could reasonably have generated the 'reaction' of being accused of being a paid shill of some kind. Especially when, as you point out, this allegation is obviously false. A swipe, ill-judged as it may be, is not in the same league as a near-libellous and utterly false accusation. In this case, the person who 'reacted' isn't even the person at whom the swipe was directed, but someone who decided to trawl through my post history to dig up dirt (as they saw it).
  - dang 6y ago
    I didn't suggest that. On the contrary—that's why I scolded the others for doing it.
    - foldr 6y ago
      That's how I interpreted "It's not surprising that you provoked...That's not cool". Thanks for clarifying.

hanselot 6y ago

Almost leans some credence to the theory that disinformation agents lurk and astroturf here actively.

mlthoughts2018 6y ago
Absolutely. The way the same comments are rapid-fire added to these threads every time is deeply suspicious and a great cause for concern. This should be one of the top comments, it’s not reasonable to disagree with this worry given the commenter behavior on this thread and all the previous iterations.
- foldr 6y ago
  Same offer to you. Call me and lets talk about it, if you really think I am an agent of some kind. I find it worrying that trust is breaking down to this extent. Even if we disagree strongly, perhaps I can at least persuade you that my opinions are my own.
  - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
    I don’t think you’re an agent, but I do think you’re astroturfing.
    - foldr 6y ago
      Here's Wikipedia's definition of astroturfing: "Astroturfing is the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g., political, advertising, religious or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by grassroots participants." Are you saying that I'm an agent of some larger organization and not revealing this? If not, what exactly do you mean by 'astroturfing'? And why will you not take me up on my offer to talk about this? Does it not concern you that you may be making a false accusation? It's cowardly and rude to make these kind of accusations without even giving the accused person any kind of opportunity to present you with evidence to the contrary.

dang 6y ago

You can't attack another user like this on HN, regardless of how wrong they are or how strongly you disagree with their views. It's pure poison to community, we ban accounts that do this, and the site guidelines make it clear that it's not ok. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and don't do this again.