4 ms·

You probably meant to respond to someone else, I have made no such claim.

by cess11 2y ago

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
You asked for examples about office work spreading disease, in the context of you saying that you hadn't seen the claim before. I took that as an unwillingness to believe the idea until you saw evidence. If that wasn't your point, I obviously didn't understand what you were trying to say, so could you clarify? [Edit: I see that it could be read to be asking for examples of the claim that office work spreads disease in a piece arguing against RTO. Given that at this time, none of the direct replies read it that way, I'm going to say that it was at a minimum ambiguously worded...]
- monocularvision 2y ago
  You might want to slow down a bit and re-read what the person actually said in their comment.
- monocularvision 2y ago
  Your edit is still wrong! In context, the person was replying to someone who stated “I have read it all when it comes to RTO”. They stated they hadn’t seen a _blog post_ making _this point_ that RTO would cause more sickness. They were never addressing the claim that it does or does not. They were talking about the novelty of this argument for them.
samatman 2y ago
Just as a tip: the links between comments and replies on HN is pretty thin so it can be hard to follow the connection between a comment and what it's reply to. I get fewer (not none!) of this kind of misunderstood reply after adopting a habit of quoting the specific part of a post which I'm replying to, especially when that post makes more than one point. So in this case (and this is mainly for the benefit of anyone still confused about what happened in this thread): > > I have heard every possible sentiment about RTO at this point. > Don't think I've seen the point about office work spreading disease in a blog post like this before. Do you have any examples of this?

4 ms·

You probably meant to respond to someone else, I have made no such claim.

by cess11 2y ago

You probably meant to respond to someone else, I have made no such claim.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
You asked for examples about office work spreading disease, in the context of you saying that you hadn't seen the claim before. I took that as an unwillingness to believe the idea until you saw evidence. If that wasn't your point, I obviously didn't understand what you were trying to say, so could you clarify? [Edit: I see that it could be read to be asking for examples of the claim that office work spreads disease in a piece arguing against RTO. Given that at this time, none of the direct replies read it that way, I'm going to say that it was at a minimum ambiguously worded...]
- monocularvision 2y ago
  You might want to slow down a bit and re-read what the person actually said in their comment.
- monocularvision 2y ago
  Your edit is still wrong! In context, the person was replying to someone who stated “I have read it all when it comes to RTO”. They stated they hadn’t seen a _blog post_ making _this point_ that RTO would cause more sickness. They were never addressing the claim that it does or does not. They were talking about the novelty of this argument for them.
samatman 2y ago
Just as a tip: the links between comments and replies on HN is pretty thin so it can be hard to follow the connection between a comment and what it's reply to. I get fewer (not none!) of this kind of misunderstood reply after adopting a habit of quoting the specific part of a post which I'm replying to, especially when that post makes more than one point. So in this case (and this is mainly for the benefit of anyone still confused about what happened in this thread): > > I have heard every possible sentiment about RTO at this point. > Don't think I've seen the point about office work spreading disease in a blog post like this before. Do you have any examples of this?