3 ms·
Not the person you replied to, but > Because it's your first adventure in the land of crypto and you have no idea how to do things is rather presumptuous. I d
by Aachen 6y ago
Not the person you replied to, but
> Because it's your first adventure in the land of crypto and you have no idea how to do things
is rather presumptuous. I do actually know how to do crypto things (I review and test such things for a living) and after reading their comment and skimming the post I'm left wondering the exact same thing.
- viraptor 6y agoYou misunderstood the answer. It's "you" as in: why would person X do this - because person X is a beginner in this area. (Like the author)
- Aachen 6y agoI figured as much, and by the way English has the word "one" for that (e.g. one could go for a walk), but regardless you're replying to someone, quoting them even, and calling it ignorant. You can wave it away as being written in general, but either way you're including the person you replied to in the group that you call ignorant.
- b0afc375b5 6y agoI agree 'one' might have been the better word, but I understood what the 'you' meant immediately, as a third person reference, not directed to anyone specific. English is weird that way.
- Aachen 6y agoI mean, so did I? See the first two words of the comment
- b0afc375b5 6y agoYou say you understand, but the second part of your statement indicates that you don't. What I'm puzzled by is, why did you feel the need to suggest that the comment in question can be considered an attack on someone, when it is clear (to the both of us, as you point out), that it isn't so? Edit: I say this because I always think about this guideline before I comment: > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.