>I also don't see why or how that would matter. It does not. In the big scheme of things it really does not; I am on the same page as you there. Now, I want e

>I also don't see why or how that would matter. It does not. In the big scheme of things it really does not; I am on the same page as you there. Now, I want explicitly point out that if reported then surely that leaves some non-zero work for @throwawaysea who wrote: >Anything can be construed to be a safety issue ... If you think exchanging information is dangerous to the point that it requires censorship, then you’re arguing for authoritarianism and tyranny. Right? Because by that analysis HN is conspiring in censorship or is censoring. Be clear: not my position at all. The HN complaint was: hey, keep it professional and naming calling isn't professional. I stand corrected there. The larger point is: - I do not feel nor would I argue I was censored; certainly not - it is not the case communication for or against some issue X is censorship - taking responsibility isn't necessarily censorship - we are not helped to better assess issues that leave the domain of petty, serious, or deep disagreement into censorship and tyranny by confusing inanimate things with the people above it that put those assets to work. Again, apologies for losing my cool.