4 ms·

I'm not going to bother responding in depth, since it's evident that that will be fruitless. This, for example, is a good indicator: > Arguably true but Ther

by cxr 3y ago

I'm not going to bother responding in depth, since it's evident that that will be fruitless. This, for example, is a good indicator: > Arguably true but There's nothing arguable about it. It's simply "true".

lproven 3y ago
[[Citation needed]] I mean this is ancient history and I really don't know why you are so bothered about it, but as I recall, Netscape was unwilling and unable to open the source code for 3.x or 4.x and so rather than spend all the time and effort to clean it up for publication, it chose to rewrite it. So, as I said: the reasoning was unfortunate but understandable.
- cxr 3y ago
  > I really don't know why you are so bothered about it Drop the ad hominem if you want to have a serious discussion. (In the future, that is. We won't be having a discussion here, for the reasons stated. You can email me if you want, but I'm going to impose a mandatory 1-month delay for reflection and require a simple affirmation that the purpose will be a genuine attempt to develop the facts rather than "winning" the conversation. Changing the subject, diverting attention with weak attempts at petty retorts, etc. are going to be strictly off-limits.)
  - subjectsigma 3y ago
    My God you sound completely insufferable. I hope for your relatives sake you only say shit like this online
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - cxr 3y ago
      <https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#comments https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#comments>
  - lproven 3y ago
    There was no ad hom in my reply, and I don't feel any need for further argument, thanks. My article had plenty of references and citations for the points I wanted to make. If you wish to falsify it, then you need to reply with your own citations. You have yet to do so, and what you claim are significant issues are, AFAICS, trivial cavils.

4 ms·

I'm not going to bother responding in depth, since it's evident that that will be fruitless. This, for example, is a good indicator: > Arguably true but Ther

by cxr 3y ago

lproven 3y ago
[[Citation needed]] I mean this is ancient history and I really don't know why you are so bothered about it, but as I recall, Netscape was unwilling and unable to open the source code for 3.x or 4.x and so rather than spend all the time and effort to clean it up for publication, it chose to rewrite it. So, as I said: the reasoning was unfortunate but understandable.
- cxr 3y ago
  > I really don't know why you are so bothered about it Drop the ad hominem if you want to have a serious discussion. (In the future, that is. We won't be having a discussion here, for the reasons stated. You can email me if you want, but I'm going to impose a mandatory 1-month delay for reflection and require a simple affirmation that the purpose will be a genuine attempt to develop the facts rather than "winning" the conversation. Changing the subject, diverting attention with weak attempts at petty retorts, etc. are going to be strictly off-limits.)
  - subjectsigma 3y ago
    My God you sound completely insufferable. I hope for your relatives sake you only say shit like this online
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - cxr 3y ago
      <https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#comments https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#comments>
  - lproven 3y ago
    There was no ad hom in my reply, and I don't feel any need for further argument, thanks. My article had plenty of references and citations for the points I wanted to make. If you wish to falsify it, then you need to reply with your own citations. You have yet to do so, and what you claim are significant issues are, AFAICS, trivial cavils.