3 ms·

> But I've also seen an ambulance with its sirens on delayed by several minutes because of a double-parked minivan. So you're #3 then; there's not a single dou

> But I've also seen an ambulance with its sirens on delayed by several minutes because of a double-parked minivan. So you're #3 then; there's not a single doubt in my mind that this is exceptional and the converse (people being booted unjustly/indiscriminately) is the norm.

dang 3y ago
Could you please not cross into personal attack and please not post in the flamewar style to HN? We're trying for something different here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- mathisfun123 3y ago
  Do tell how pointing out that anecdata doesn't constitute a good faith engagement should be considered "personal attack" or "flamewar".
  - dang 3y ago
    Accusing another commenter of bad faith is a personal attack, and the aggressive way you've been arguing is the flamewar style.
    - mathisfun123 3y ago
      I'm sorry so the choices I'm presented with are 1. Acknowledge "I once saw an..." as legitimate discourse. 2. Point out that bad faith and then be censured. That's what you're going for "here"?
      - dang 3y ago
        The HN guidelines ask commenters to assume good faith. This is for several reasons. One is that "bad faith" has to do with the other person's intention, which is not something one really has access to; as a result, internet commenters are far too quick to jump to this explanation. Another reason is the effect such accusations have on discussion quality, which is to make it shallower, more predictable and nastier. It's simply not curious conversation. Also from https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html: "Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine." Your comments are noticeably breaking that guideline by (as I mentioned above) arguing so aggressively. Can you please take the intended spirit of this site, as expressed in the guidelines, more to heart? We'd appreciate it, and you'll find yourself getting flagged (by users) and moderated (by mods) much less.
        mathisfun123 3y ago
        [flagged]
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]

dang 3y ago

Could you please not cross into personal attack and please not post in the flamewar style to HN? We're trying for something different here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

mathisfun123 3y ago
Do tell how pointing out that anecdata doesn't constitute a good faith engagement should be considered "personal attack" or "flamewar".
- dang 3y ago
  Accusing another commenter of bad faith is a personal attack, and the aggressive way you've been arguing is the flamewar style.
  - mathisfun123 3y ago
    I'm sorry so the choices I'm presented with are 1. Acknowledge "I once saw an..." as legitimate discourse. 2. Point out that bad faith and then be censured. That's what you're going for "here"?
    - dang 3y ago
      The HN guidelines ask commenters to assume good faith. This is for several reasons. One is that "bad faith" has to do with the other person's intention, which is not something one really has access to; as a result, internet commenters are far too quick to jump to this explanation. Another reason is the effect such accusations have on discussion quality, which is to make it shallower, more predictable and nastier. It's simply not curious conversation. Also from https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html: "Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine." Your comments are noticeably breaking that guideline by (as I mentioned above) arguing so aggressively. Can you please take the intended spirit of this site, as expressed in the guidelines, more to heart? We'd appreciate it, and you'll find yourself getting flagged (by users) and moderated (by mods) much less.
      - mathisfun123 3y ago
        [flagged]
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]