3 ms·

I don't agree with you. We should be establishing a polite ettiquette

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
bmelton 15y ago
You don't agree that different people have different sensibilities regarding language? Or is that you don't agree the author should be allowed to swear in his blog? Or perhaps you don't agree that blue material is fitting for HN?
- DanBC 15y ago
  Or perhaps some things are distractions, and the audience deserves to read about the issues without distractions being deliberately inserted into the conversation?
  - bmelton 15y ago
    Undoubtedly that's true, but the GP said "Diff'rent stroke for diff'rent folks", and the parent said "I disagree." For certain, the blog in question would be better received by some if it were written differently, but I don't know what that has to do with the conversation here. (The counterpoint is likely true as well.) I'm trying to determine what about "Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks" the parent could choose to disagree with.
- joering2 15y ago
  didn't the second sentence give you a hint good enough to determine what he doesn't agree with? no offence but I feel like replying to a troll, and I know I shouldn't :(
  - bmelton 15y ago
    If the second sentence answered the question for me, I wouldn't have asked it. I'm not sure what he disagrees with, or where he intends to enforce this 'polite etiquette', or why someone posting an entry on their blog should be beholden to his set of rules. It's a genuine question to slake my own curiosity. I am by no means the arbiter of all things tactful, but I am curious where he expects the boundaries to be drawn. I am also extremely eager to hear how one can disagree with the idea of "Diff'rent strokes", as I would posit it as the hallmark of tolerance. If it is our idea that we should promote civility above tolerance, or above intellectual discourse, then I'd like to hear more insight on that. Also, not that it's my place to say, but one of my favorite guides for posting on HN is to 'assume good faith'. If you feel like you're responding to a troll, then you shouldn't respond, or you're just feeding worse onto bad. If you're responding, then you should assume good faith, and not make responses like "I'm feeding the trolls". I don't know what could have been trollish about my question, but I also don't see any particular added value in your comment except to make doubly sure that I actually intended to ask the question I already asked.
icebraining 15y ago
And why would anyone follow it? You need some kind of punishing system for it to be effective, and I'm opposed to that.
- alexchamberlain 15y ago
  I'm opposed to that too, but I immediately ignore arguements made by people who can't make them without swearing.
  - ktizo 15y ago
    What about those who choose to swear? Also, your stance might be unfortunate if someone ever shouts at you, "Fuck me, there's a tiger, run!"
    - alexchamberlain 15y ago
      I'm not saying swearing doesn't have its place. However, it is not in a professional arguement.
      - ktizo 15y ago
        Not usually a spelling nazi, but if you are telling people what words they are allowed to use professionally, could you also spellcheck the words you choose to employ. There are less of them, so it should be easier.
        alexchamberlain 15y ago
        I assume you are referring to my spelling of arguement; the additional e is allowed in British English.
        ktizo 15y ago
        Fair point, you are right. I think it would be picked up as incorrect by most English teachers in Britain, all the ones I had anyway, however it is correct, if a touch archaic. But I was being an arse for picking at that in the first place anyway, I just thought that your views on avoiding swearing were a bit over the top and not entirely realistic. Many professional environments cope fine with quite a blue tinge to their speech, possibly because having to watch your tongue all the time can be a negative in places that require rapid communication with the full range of emphasis.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

You don't agree that different people have different sensibilities regarding language? Or is that you don't agree the author should be allowed to swear in his blog? Or perhaps you don't agree that blue material is fitting for HN?

DanBC 15y ago
Or perhaps some things are distractions, and the audience deserves to read about the issues without distractions being deliberately inserted into the conversation?
- bmelton 15y ago
  Undoubtedly that's true, but the GP said "Diff'rent stroke for diff'rent folks", and the parent said "I disagree." For certain, the blog in question would be better received by some if it were written differently, but I don't know what that has to do with the conversation here. (The counterpoint is likely true as well.) I'm trying to determine what about "Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks" the parent could choose to disagree with.
joering2 15y ago
didn't the second sentence give you a hint good enough to determine what he doesn't agree with? no offence but I feel like replying to a troll, and I know I shouldn't :(
- bmelton 15y ago
  If the second sentence answered the question for me, I wouldn't have asked it. I'm not sure what he disagrees with, or where he intends to enforce this 'polite etiquette', or why someone posting an entry on their blog should be beholden to his set of rules. It's a genuine question to slake my own curiosity. I am by no means the arbiter of all things tactful, but I am curious where he expects the boundaries to be drawn. I am also extremely eager to hear how one can disagree with the idea of "Diff'rent strokes", as I would posit it as the hallmark of tolerance. If it is our idea that we should promote civility above tolerance, or above intellectual discourse, then I'd like to hear more insight on that. Also, not that it's my place to say, but one of my favorite guides for posting on HN is to 'assume good faith'. If you feel like you're responding to a troll, then you shouldn't respond, or you're just feeding worse onto bad. If you're responding, then you should assume good faith, and not make responses like "I'm feeding the trolls". I don't know what could have been trollish about my question, but I also don't see any particular added value in your comment except to make doubly sure that I actually intended to ask the question I already asked.

icebraining 15y ago

And why would anyone follow it? You need some kind of punishing system for it to be effective, and I'm opposed to that.

alexchamberlain 15y ago
I'm opposed to that too, but I immediately ignore arguements made by people who can't make them without swearing.
- ktizo 15y ago
  What about those who choose to swear? Also, your stance might be unfortunate if someone ever shouts at you, "Fuck me, there's a tiger, run!"
  - alexchamberlain 15y ago
    I'm not saying swearing doesn't have its place. However, it is not in a professional arguement.
    - ktizo 15y ago
      Not usually a spelling nazi, but if you are telling people what words they are allowed to use professionally, could you also spellcheck the words you choose to employ. There are less of them, so it should be easier.
      - alexchamberlain 15y ago
        I assume you are referring to my spelling of arguement; the additional e is allowed in British English.
        ktizo 15y ago
        Fair point, you are right. I think it would be picked up as incorrect by most English teachers in Britain, all the ones I had anyway, however it is correct, if a touch archaic. But I was being an arse for picking at that in the first place anyway, I just thought that your views on avoiding swearing were a bit over the top and not entirely realistic. Many professional environments cope fine with quite a blue tinge to their speech, possibly because having to watch your tongue all the time can be a negative in places that require rapid communication with the full range of emphasis.