3 ms·
Reaction to the post, not you: And the comments, while using 'real names' mostly, show that this policy cannot protect against ignorance and miscommunication.
by darklajid 15y ago
Reaction to the post, not you:
And the comments, while using 'real names' mostly, show that this policy cannot protect against ignorance and miscommunication. I read it, about half the comments, and had to facepalm when several people (Hey, are you really 'Scott Wakeman' or 'Brian Dayhoff'? Because.. That would suck) went down that sorry 'Google's service, Google's rules' route. One even using a lawn as an analogy. I'd applaud to that, but given the ignorance of the statements within I doubt that the irony was intended.
Yes, Google can ban everyone from their service as they please. No, that is not a valid argument in this discussion.
I left my 'I'm taking my ball home and don't play with you anymore' or alternatively 'We don't like you, you cannot join our game' attitude in preschool. Please. Stop that. Assume that people have a brain and use it. Use yours _more_.
- saraid216 15y ago> Hey, are you really 'Scott Wakeman' or 'Brian Dayhoff'? Because.. That would suck My real name is available on my HN profile, heh. I am neither of those two persons.
- darklajid 15y agoAh - but what I tried to say with my first line was: The following is not directed at you, the poster of the comment on HN/the link, but instead a reaction reading the post on G+. In other words: Nothing against you, sorry if it seemed that way/if I've been unclear. The .. rant was entirely related to the content on G+ and my problems with certain statements there.
- saraid216 15y agoNo problem. It was clear to me. :)