3 ms·
> Not a reasonable interpretation. You’re not responding to the strongest form of my argument here or to that of TFA in OP, as is encouraged by the HN Guidelin
by aspenmayer 3y ago
> Not a reasonable interpretation.
You’re not responding to the strongest form of my argument here or to that of TFA in OP, as is encouraged by the HN Guidelines, instead opting for a dismissive, argumentative attitude which isn’t really helping your argument, to be honest.
I mean, you aren’t really making much of an argument, either, just authoritatively stating your opinions as fact with no actual factual basis or even any attempt to articulate your own views.
Anyone can be contrary, but to simply say “I disagree” or “you’re wrong” isn’t consistent with HN Guidelines either, so I’m not sure what you want me to do with your responses here.
It’s fine to have a difference of opinion or disagree regarding matters of fact, but you really owe it to yourself and to the other visitors to post better.
Period.
- chrisjj 3y ago> You’re not responding to the strongest form of my argument here I'm responding to the only form of your argument here.
- aspenmayer 3y agoYour responses are not actually rebuttals or responses at all any more than simple disagreement. Your one liner response here proves my point and disproves your own. You’re embarrassing yourself and me too for continuing to engage with you in good faith while you thumb your nose at the argument and debate itself by not even making your own case. I continue to hold out hope that you’ll do better but I don’t even know what your point is because you haven’t made one. Or at least not yet? Please respond with your views on OP and my views on balsamic vinegar or I guess you can continue with your own form of argument. Honestly I’ll take nearly any kind of response showing some kind of effort, but this ain’t it.
- chrisjj 3y agoGiven your argument is based on the false premise: > "Real" balsamic vinegar as the title uses the world real ... (the title does not use the word real at all) I don't believe it is worth effort to rebut.
- aspenmayer 3y agoI already explained that they implied the word real by using fake, and the word real is used in the article. You’re not even making a point. From your comment history, you’re a serial pedant and this entire thread is no different. Why are you like this?
- chrisjj 3y agoLet's try to stay on topic, shall we?
- aspenmayer 3y agoI'm responding to the only form of your argument here.
- dang 3y agoCan you please avoid flamewars and tit-for-tat spats like this one, when posting on HN? It's definitely not what the site is for, and it makes boring reading. One sign that a thread is leaving the rails is when people start arguing about their argument, as you guys did here and here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40280772 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40280772 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40279988 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40279988 If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
- aspenmayer 3y ago> One sign that a thread is leaving the rails is when people start arguing about their argument I was attempting to reformulate/rephrase my discussion to avoid low-effort and groundless dismissal of my good faith points. I was all but asking them why they believe the way they do and what they believe, to no avail. I was turning their own words against them in order to hold a mirror up to the absurdity of carrying on like they do when all else failed. Thanks for the points all the same, including my debate partner, after all this, and also to dang, naturally.