4 ms·

> Yes you were wrong, and and that other person was correct. No, I was not wrong. If you actually read the thread, you would see that there was no misunderstan

> Yes you were wrong, and and that other person was correct. No, I was not wrong. If you actually read the thread, you would see that there was no misunderstanding. Continuing to reply isn't going to change that. > Multiple other people here are not interpreting the statement how you are interpreting it. So to everyone else, it was clear, and you seem to be the one mis-interpreting. And by multiple people, you mean you and the one other? Both who are ideologically opposed to my arguments. Shocking. > I think it is pretty clear that the original poster was saying something similar to that. It's clear that the original poster was saying exactly what they wrote. So as I said, what exactly are you trying to accomplish here? Because you're multiple replies in, and have accomplished precisely nothing. You've jumped in to make your own little interpretation of someone else's interpretation of someone else's comment. Are you seriously oblivious to how ridiculous this is?

WhyOhWhyQ 4y ago
"Both who are ideologically opposed to my arguments." I assume you're talking about me. I am curious about this. Which of your arguments have I expressed ideological opposition towards? The only ideology I've expressed, I believe, is that overrepresentation is not an acceptable justification for discrimination. Otherwise I've pointed out mistakes in your thinking and writing.
- PierceJoy 4y ago
  Are you aware your post history is viewable? There are no mistakes in my thinking or writing. You made incorrect assumptions and then ran with them, which is funny because that's what you accused me of.
  - WhyOhWhyQ 4y ago
    I am. I'm still curious about what I've said that you think is ideological. There were several mistakes, at least in your writing, which are well-outlined in my post history.
    - PierceJoy 4y ago
      There are no mistakes in my thinking or writing. You made incorrect assumptions, which are well-outlined in your writing, and then ran with them, which is funny because that’s what you accused me of. Are we going to keep going, or should we just stop?
      - WhyOhWhyQ 4y ago
        What did I say which was ideological?
stale2002 4y ago
> Both who are ideologically opposed to my arguments. I don't really care either way on this topic acceptance criteria in schools. I just don't like it when people misunderstand other people's arguments and refuse to accept reasonable clarifications. > have accomplished precisely nothing You could have just accepted the reasonable clarification, with WhoOhWhyQ said, which is "overrepresentation is not an acceptable justification for discrimination", and gone on from there. > to how ridiculous this is? You could have just gone with the clarification which was helpfully offered. No ridiculousness necessary.
- PierceJoy 4y ago
  No clarifications were needed because there was no misunderstanding. You've created a misunderstanding out of thin air, and then spent multiple replies trying to defend it. At this point it’s quite clear that you really just want to have the last word. You haven’t contributed anything of substance to this thread, but will somehow feel emotionally fulfilled if you have the last comment. So go ahead. Reply and tell me how wrong I am again. It will completely validate everything I just wrote, but I am interested to see whether you’re willing to do that in order to have the last comment in the thread. My prediction is that you lack the self control to stop yourself from replying, but we shall see :)
  - stale2002 4y ago
    > So go ahead. Reply. It will completely validate everything I just wrote, but I am interested to see whether you’re willing to do that in order to have the last comment in the thread. My prediction is that you lack the self control to stop yourself from replying, but we shall see :) I'd recommend that you read up on hacker news's terms of service, because your comments like this seem to frequently ignore them. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html "Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community." "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." "Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity."

WhyOhWhyQ 4y ago

"Both who are ideologically opposed to my arguments." I assume you're talking about me. I am curious about this. Which of your arguments have I expressed ideological opposition towards? The only ideology I've expressed, I believe, is that overrepresentation is not an acceptable justification for discrimination. Otherwise I've pointed out mistakes in your thinking and writing.

PierceJoy 4y ago
Are you aware your post history is viewable? There are no mistakes in my thinking or writing. You made incorrect assumptions and then ran with them, which is funny because that's what you accused me of.
- WhyOhWhyQ 4y ago
  I am. I'm still curious about what I've said that you think is ideological. There were several mistakes, at least in your writing, which are well-outlined in my post history.
  - PierceJoy 4y ago
    There are no mistakes in my thinking or writing. You made incorrect assumptions, which are well-outlined in your writing, and then ran with them, which is funny because that’s what you accused me of. Are we going to keep going, or should we just stop?
    - WhyOhWhyQ 4y ago
      What did I say which was ideological?

stale2002 4y ago

> Both who are ideologically opposed to my arguments. I don't really care either way on this topic acceptance criteria in schools. I just don't like it when people misunderstand other people's arguments and refuse to accept reasonable clarifications. > have accomplished precisely nothing You could have just accepted the reasonable clarification, with WhoOhWhyQ said, which is "overrepresentation is not an acceptable justification for discrimination", and gone on from there. > to how ridiculous this is? You could have just gone with the clarification which was helpfully offered. No ridiculousness necessary.

PierceJoy 4y ago
No clarifications were needed because there was no misunderstanding. You've created a misunderstanding out of thin air, and then spent multiple replies trying to defend it. At this point it’s quite clear that you really just want to have the last word. You haven’t contributed anything of substance to this thread, but will somehow feel emotionally fulfilled if you have the last comment. So go ahead. Reply and tell me how wrong I am again. It will completely validate everything I just wrote, but I am interested to see whether you’re willing to do that in order to have the last comment in the thread. My prediction is that you lack the self control to stop yourself from replying, but we shall see :)
- stale2002 4y ago
  > So go ahead. Reply. It will completely validate everything I just wrote, but I am interested to see whether you’re willing to do that in order to have the last comment in the thread. My prediction is that you lack the self control to stop yourself from replying, but we shall see :) I'd recommend that you read up on hacker news's terms of service, because your comments like this seem to frequently ignore them. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html "Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community." "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." "Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity."