4 ms·
I did not say what you said is "incendiary", I said it is "borderline incendiary". It's not incendiary since it is true, but it is expressed in such a pythy fas
by jrimbault 6y ago
I did not say what you said is "incendiary", I said it is "borderline incendiary". It's not incendiary since it is true, but it is expressed in such a pythy fashion as to be almost incendiary. Especially when I crafted my original comment to specifically acknowledge those cases.
Between your answer and MaxBarraclough's, one is tonally a quickwitted mean quip and the other is a well articulated and well meaning response.
- lrossi 6y agoIt’s terse, but sounds fine to me. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- jrimbault 6y agoAlso in the rules, just a bit lower : > Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. That's why I answered to one comment but not to the other. It's really sterile ground for an argument. Which I'd hoped that by carefully wording my first comment we could all avoid.