3 ms·
>There's an interesting phenomenon where, in responding to moderation comments, people often explain what they originally meant in a form that would have been m
by ukj 5y ago
>There's an interesting phenomenon where, in responding to moderation comments, people often explain what they originally meant in a form that would have been much better to say in the first place.
I am surprised tha this surprises you. It is generally true that in responding to any evolving dialogue, people often explain what they originally meant in a form that would've been much better to say in the first place.
Because that's how dialogue works, and that's what dialogue is for. Elucidating meaning.
What is baffling me in this interaction is that you seem perfectly aware of the fact that my meaning is in my head, but then you also expected to find it in my words without any dialogue.
- dang 5y agoPerhaps this will be clearer: (1) don't post snarky, low-information comments to HN; (2) do say something thoughtful and substantive. Having something substantive in your head does not justify posting a snarky low-information comment. You need to make the substantive comment explicitly, and without the snark.
- ukj 5y agoPerhaps this will be clearer: (1) Don't interpret my post as snarky (2) don't judge my comment as thoughtless and non-substantive when a thoughtful and substantive interpretation to my laconic comment exists (as you have become aware). I heard you have a rule about that. Maybe you could lead by example. >Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.