>Nobody is assuming anything. "The person submitting this link to HN posted a snarky rhetorical question" is an assumption, and one that I can state categorica

>Nobody is assuming anything. "The person submitting this link to HN posted a snarky rhetorical question" is an assumption, and one that I can state categorically and with 100% confidence is incorrect. >You have presented it as a rhetorical question I did not. >work on your presentation if that wasn’t the intention I'm not repeating myself on this again. Go read my comments elsewhere. >Nobody said anything about bad faith You tried to tell me that I had asked a rhetorical question when I did not. That's assuming bad faith. >What I don’t understand is why you would expect any outcome other than what happened Who said that I did? The github issue even mentions my expectations. But I'm sure you read it in its entirety and knew that already. >There’s no need to dramatize something that’s already abhorrent. You're wrong again. By raising the issue on github and then submitting it to HN, at least one more person is aware of it. Which means that I achieved my goal and made the world a better place today. >This particular incident isn’t worthy of its own HN thread. That may or may not be the case, I'm fairly new to HN. I thought it was. I have since re-read the HN rules and I stand by that decision, unless you have a rule that I may have missed that you'd like to point out? >Your own efforts are detrimental to the credibility of the people who are being targeted by Muse Group, as linked above. Not so. As I mentioned, at least one person will be taking a harder look at audacity as a result of this. The impact might not have been as wide as I would have liked, but I did achieve my goal.