3 ms·

I didn't use his karma and profile to discredit his argument. I used his (perceived) exaggerated expectations of privacy -- which I garnered from both reading h

I didn't use his karma and profile to discredit his argument. I used his (perceived) exaggerated expectations of privacy -- which I garnered from both reading his comment and looking at his profile -- to discredit his argument. You are free to agree with him that you should disable your HTTP referrer header but it breaks the Web and is probably a sign of paranoia on some level or another. It really is quite innocuous.

ceol 15y ago
> I didn't use his karma and profile to discredit his argument. I used his (perceived) exaggerated expectations of privacy -- which I garnered from both reading his comment and looking at his profile -- to discredit his argument. You assumed the type of person ck2 was from their karma and profile page and then discredited their comment because of that assumption; specifically, you called them a "vocal minerdity". To be honest, your reply to ck2 was little more than verbose name-calling and offered nothing of substance to the discussion. My apologies to the other HN readers for this derail. edit: That came off kind of harsh. I'm sure you meant well by your comment, but I don't think an appropriate reply to ck2 was to point to their profile and call them paranoid.
- coderdude 15y ago
  I don't mean any disparage on ck2, though I do completely disagree with him. "minerdity" (which I thought was rather clever, actually) is perfect for describing the minority of highly technical users that have deep-seated privacy issues. That determination didn't come from his profile. His comment said it all. He makes it sound like you'd have to be nuts or ignorant to not block the referrer and that's simply not the case. Sometimes you have to look at the person doing the talking and determine if they are biased or not. Like when someone with "I hate Microsoft" in their about is in a thread about Microsoft trying to explain to you why Windows is dying off. That was my determination, for better or for worse, I can't take it back now.

ceol 15y ago

> I didn't use his karma and profile to discredit his argument. I used his (perceived) exaggerated expectations of privacy -- which I garnered from both reading his comment and looking at his profile -- to discredit his argument. You assumed the type of person ck2 was from their karma and profile page and then discredited their comment because of that assumption; specifically, you called them a "vocal minerdity". To be honest, your reply to ck2 was little more than verbose name-calling and offered nothing of substance to the discussion. My apologies to the other HN readers for this derail. edit: That came off kind of harsh. I'm sure you meant well by your comment, but I don't think an appropriate reply to ck2 was to point to their profile and call them paranoid.

coderdude 15y ago
I don't mean any disparage on ck2, though I do completely disagree with him. "minerdity" (which I thought was rather clever, actually) is perfect for describing the minority of highly technical users that have deep-seated privacy issues. That determination didn't come from his profile. His comment said it all. He makes it sound like you'd have to be nuts or ignorant to not block the referrer and that's simply not the case. Sometimes you have to look at the person doing the talking and determine if they are biased or not. Like when someone with "I hate Microsoft" in their about is in a thread about Microsoft trying to explain to you why Windows is dying off. That was my determination, for better or for worse, I can't take it back now.