3 ms·

Why wouldn't you book Korn (et al)? Woodstock 69 was a music festival for major rock headliners with a goal of making a pile of money & advertised using the ze

Why wouldn't you book Korn (et al)? Woodstock 69 was a music festival for major rock headliners with a goal of making a pile of money & advertised using the zeitgeist of the time. Woodstock 99 was a music festival for major rock headliners with a goal of making a pile of money & advertised using nostalgia for the previous one.

baobabKoodaa 4y ago
- maverwa 4y ago
  To be fair, your suggestion that the person above thinks „making money justifies rape and death“ ist pretty far fetched. They basically said „if you want a big festival you book popular band“ and you said „so you thinks rape is okay?“. No that’s not what they said. Suggesting the thinks the result is „okay“ because they gave a - imho totally reasonable - explanation for a decision someone made some ~23 years ago is pretty disingenuous at least.
SkittyDog 4y ago
Your reply strikes me as snarky and rude. You could have phrased your comment differently, and made the exact same point, but without being disrespectful to everyone who has to read your reply. * https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Under "In Comments"... > 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 post shallow dismissals...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- nativespecies 4y ago
  You're really invoking the code of conduct for this completely benign reply? Get over yourself.
- sophacles 4y ago
  Please reconsider your interpretation of what I said: * the strongest plausible interpretation is that I re-framed the part of the post I was responding to into the viewpoint of an event organizer before the outcome of said event was known. I think "being rude and shallowly dismissing it" is not the strongest plausible interpretation, but rather a shallow dismissal of my comment. * I believe you are not assuming good faith in my statement. * how is it snarky? * how is it rude? I have no idea how it could be plausibly have been interpreted as disrespectful to anyone merely reading the exchange - would you mind enlightening me on how I insulted you?

baobabKoodaa 4y ago

maverwa 4y ago
To be fair, your suggestion that the person above thinks „making money justifies rape and death“ ist pretty far fetched. They basically said „if you want a big festival you book popular band“ and you said „so you thinks rape is okay?“. No that’s not what they said. Suggesting the thinks the result is „okay“ because they gave a - imho totally reasonable - explanation for a decision someone made some ~23 years ago is pretty disingenuous at least.

SkittyDog 4y ago

Your reply strikes me as snarky and rude. You could have phrased your comment differently, and made the exact same point, but without being disrespectful to everyone who has to read your reply. * https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Under "In Comments"... > 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 post shallow dismissals...

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nativespecies 4y ago
You're really invoking the code of conduct for this completely benign reply? Get over yourself.
sophacles 4y ago
Please reconsider your interpretation of what I said: * the strongest plausible interpretation is that I re-framed the part of the post I was responding to into the viewpoint of an event organizer before the outcome of said event was known. I think "being rude and shallowly dismissing it" is not the strongest plausible interpretation, but rather a shallow dismissal of my comment. * I believe you are not assuming good faith in my statement. * how is it snarky? * how is it rude? I have no idea how it could be plausibly have been interpreted as disrespectful to anyone merely reading the exchange - would you mind enlightening me on how I insulted you?