3 ms·

> I'm neither interested nor disinterested For someone "neither interested nor disinterested", you're making a lot of posts about this subject matter. Don't y

> I'm neither interested nor disinterested For someone "neither interested nor disinterested", you're making a lot of posts about this subject matter. Don't you think that if you're in a topic posting about the Twitter vs Elon Musk court case, that you should at very least _PRETEND_ to have interest in this case? Or what are you trying to do to me, just waste my time with these replies of yours? ---------- I'm not saying you have to be _correct_ in your posts. All I'm asking is for you to be interested enough to seek the truth in the case before you write up a post.

Banana699 4y ago
>For someone "neither interested nor disinterested", you're making a lot of posts about this subject matter. Your statement was "If you're not interested in the legal minutia", and I replied that I'm neither interested nor disinterested, *in the legal minutia*. I'm mildly interested in the outcome of case itself, namely my preferred outcome is that of Twitter losing as much value as possible and its users lose as much of their time and peace of mind as possible. I don't particualrly care how much Musk loses or wins. This still doesn't need to imply I need to be interested in legalities. You can perfectly well be interested in your health without being interested in medicine and biology, you're interested in the 'what', not the 'how'; in the ends, not the means. I'm interested in a prticular outcome for a legal case, but not interested (and not necessarily disinterested either) in the legal intricacies of a country I don't live in when I'm not a lawyer. >that you should at very least _PRETEND_ to have interest in this case I don't need to pretend, I *am* interested in a very narrow thing about that case, namely that of twitter losing or signficantly suffering damage at least. I don't have to be interested in every single thing about that case to participate in the discussion, I mostly care about 1 thing and stated it very clearly all of my comments. >All I'm asking is for you to be interested enough to seek the truth in the case before you write up a post. I did read up 1 expert talk about Musk's legal chances posted here about 2 weeks ago, and he did give Musk low chances of winning according to several reasons I found convincing, but - like a true expert - he also acknowledged that he is (1) Not Musk's legal team or any one of them (2) Not in possesion of the full facts since he is not a party of the dispute or the judge (3) That there is enough stake on the matter, billions of dollars and reputation, that the judge can significantly hesitate and not be as straightforward as her history implies. So that's enough for me to still have reasonable hopes that my preferred outcome is going to happen.
- dragontamer 4y ago
  > Your statement was "If you're not interested in the legal minutia", and I replied that I'm neither interested nor disinterested, in the legal minutia. This topic is legal minutia of Twitter's counter-argument to Elon Musk's legal-claims. The very topic of discussion, is Musk's bot analysis tool behind his legal claims. (Which is beginning to look a lot like bullshit). > Twitter says Musk’s spam analysis used tool that called his own account a bot The topic of discussion. Are you interested in this topic or not? Do you have something relevant (not necessarily correct, but at least __relevant__) to the stated topic at hand? Because as far as I can tell, you're just interested in publicly declaring that you're ignoring the topic of discussion.
  - Banana699 4y ago
    The topic of this entire HN discussion thread is, indeed, nominally about the legal minutia. But the topic of the super comment we're both arguing in reply to is "Who could possibly be on the side of Musk", i.e. a question about the relative sympathy both sides of the legal dispute evoke. My reply to that, the one this entire sub-thread is a reply to, is that Musk evokes greater sympathy, because of how twatter abuses their power and position as a social media monopoly and how much this harms online conversations. So, in this particular scope, you're the one who is actually off-topic, my reply was about who I'm more sympathetic to. >Do you have something relevant (not necessarily correct, but at least __relevant__) to the stated topic at hand Do you mean the bot issue ? it's probably bullshit. Every social media cesspool is full of bots, some more, some less. There is no reason to think twatter is any better or worse on that particular front. It's probably instagram who's the filthiest bot playground. I think its pretty obvious that Musk will try to milk every single point, fair or not, to improve his position in the court. Bullshit or not, it ties up important resources out of twatter's legal team and gives legitimacy to his claims (because if you spend several lawyers trying to debunk bullshit, then you at least take that bullshit seriously, which gives legitimacy to the bullshit). So I don't understand what to discuss, Musk bullshitted ? no shit, he's billions-of-dollars committed to the case now, off course he's going to bullshit and do whatever it takes to win. What's interesting or novel about that ?

Banana699 4y ago

>For someone "neither interested nor disinterested", you're making a lot of posts about this subject matter. Your statement was "If you're not interested in the legal minutia", and I replied that I'm neither interested nor disinterested, *in the legal minutia*. I'm mildly interested in the outcome of case itself, namely my preferred outcome is that of Twitter losing as much value as possible and its users lose as much of their time and peace of mind as possible. I don't particualrly care how much Musk loses or wins. This still doesn't need to imply I need to be interested in legalities. You can perfectly well be interested in your health without being interested in medicine and biology, you're interested in the 'what', not the 'how'; in the ends, not the means. I'm interested in a prticular outcome for a legal case, but not interested (and not necessarily disinterested either) in the legal intricacies of a country I don't live in when I'm not a lawyer. >that you should at very least _PRETEND_ to have interest in this case I don't need to pretend, I *am* interested in a very narrow thing about that case, namely that of twitter losing or signficantly suffering damage at least. I don't have to be interested in every single thing about that case to participate in the discussion, I mostly care about 1 thing and stated it very clearly all of my comments. >All I'm asking is for you to be interested enough to seek the truth in the case before you write up a post. I did read up 1 expert talk about Musk's legal chances posted here about 2 weeks ago, and he did give Musk low chances of winning according to several reasons I found convincing, but - like a true expert - he also acknowledged that he is (1) Not Musk's legal team or any one of them (2) Not in possesion of the full facts since he is not a party of the dispute or the judge (3) That there is enough stake on the matter, billions of dollars and reputation, that the judge can significantly hesitate and not be as straightforward as her history implies. So that's enough for me to still have reasonable hopes that my preferred outcome is going to happen.

dragontamer 4y ago
> Your statement was "If you're not interested in the legal minutia", and I replied that I'm neither interested nor disinterested, in the legal minutia. This topic is legal minutia of Twitter's counter-argument to Elon Musk's legal-claims. The very topic of discussion, is Musk's bot analysis tool behind his legal claims. (Which is beginning to look a lot like bullshit). > Twitter says Musk’s spam analysis used tool that called his own account a bot The topic of discussion. Are you interested in this topic or not? Do you have something relevant (not necessarily correct, but at least __relevant__) to the stated topic at hand? Because as far as I can tell, you're just interested in publicly declaring that you're ignoring the topic of discussion.
- Banana699 4y ago
  The topic of this entire HN discussion thread is, indeed, nominally about the legal minutia. But the topic of the super comment we're both arguing in reply to is "Who could possibly be on the side of Musk", i.e. a question about the relative sympathy both sides of the legal dispute evoke. My reply to that, the one this entire sub-thread is a reply to, is that Musk evokes greater sympathy, because of how twatter abuses their power and position as a social media monopoly and how much this harms online conversations. So, in this particular scope, you're the one who is actually off-topic, my reply was about who I'm more sympathetic to. >Do you have something relevant (not necessarily correct, but at least __relevant__) to the stated topic at hand Do you mean the bot issue ? it's probably bullshit. Every social media cesspool is full of bots, some more, some less. There is no reason to think twatter is any better or worse on that particular front. It's probably instagram who's the filthiest bot playground. I think its pretty obvious that Musk will try to milk every single point, fair or not, to improve his position in the court. Bullshit or not, it ties up important resources out of twatter's legal team and gives legitimacy to his claims (because if you spend several lawyers trying to debunk bullshit, then you at least take that bullshit seriously, which gives legitimacy to the bullshit). So I don't understand what to discuss, Musk bullshitted ? no shit, he's billions-of-dollars committed to the case now, off course he's going to bullshit and do whatever it takes to win. What's interesting or novel about that ?