5 ms·

We can behave like adults, ask why it's not satisfactory, and come to a more agreeable mutual solution, or we can blithely offer an incomplete solution, muzzle

We can behave like adults, ask why it's not satisfactory, and come to a more agreeable mutual solution, or we can blithely offer an incomplete solution, muzzle the other party, and just continue our DDoS.

tptacek 4y ago
See, here you just did it again: "muzzle the other party", as if it was causally connected to your disagreement about how the module proxy should work, and not to the abuse you inflicted on members of that community.
- ddevault 4y ago
  I admitted that my comments about EFAIL -- four years ago now -- were in the wrong, and apologized for them. Unless you're going to argue that this issue should justify consuming 70% of my system's network bandwidth without recourse, move on. In the interest of not feeding the trolls, I think I can safely stop engaging with you on this thread. Or maybe on any thread -- you and I never seem to have a productive conversation on this website.
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    > In the interest of not feeding the trolls, I think I can safely stop engaging with you on this thread. Or maybe on any thread -- you and I never seem to have a productive conversation on this website. HN would be so very much more pleasant with ignore-lists.
- burntsushi 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - philosopher1234 4y ago
    The two of you are on my internal list of HN heroes. Keep fighting the good fight!
- cmatthias 4y ago
  I think it's worth taking a step back here to say that IMHO regardless of whether the OP's previous comments justify his expulsion from the issue tracker, having the only other available "DDoS opt-out" mechanism be to email Russ Cox directly is _completely insane_ and unacceptable for an organization of Google's size and funding level. If they're going to ban members from the community (perhaps justifiably so), Google needs to either provide another public place to make one of these requests, or preferably make the DDoS feature opt-in rather than opt-out.

tptacek 4y ago

See, here you just did it again: "muzzle the other party", as if it was causally connected to your disagreement about how the module proxy should work, and not to the abuse you inflicted on members of that community.

ddevault 4y ago
I admitted that my comments about EFAIL -- four years ago now -- were in the wrong, and apologized for them. Unless you're going to argue that this issue should justify consuming 70% of my system's network bandwidth without recourse, move on. In the interest of not feeding the trolls, I think I can safely stop engaging with you on this thread. Or maybe on any thread -- you and I never seem to have a productive conversation on this website.
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  > In the interest of not feeding the trolls, I think I can safely stop engaging with you on this thread. Or maybe on any thread -- you and I never seem to have a productive conversation on this website. HN would be so very much more pleasant with ignore-lists.
burntsushi 4y ago
[flagged]
- philosopher1234 4y ago
  The two of you are on my internal list of HN heroes. Keep fighting the good fight!
cmatthias 4y ago
I think it's worth taking a step back here to say that IMHO regardless of whether the OP's previous comments justify his expulsion from the issue tracker, having the only other available "DDoS opt-out" mechanism be to email Russ Cox directly is _completely insane_ and unacceptable for an organization of Google's size and funding level. If they're going to ban members from the community (perhaps justifiably so), Google needs to either provide another public place to make one of these requests, or preferably make the DDoS feature opt-in rather than opt-out.