4 ms·

I understand. I only responded to you to let you know I had definitely had a reason behind my post. You and I could have a private conversation some day about w

I understand. I only responded to you to let you know I had definitely had a reason behind my post. You and I could have a private conversation some day about why "almost certainly" is not a stretch. And it is particularly relevant with male billionaires currently exercising their aggressive genetics in the political arena more openly than ever. But, as you say, that's a discussion best held elsewhere than HN. I love it here. I began programming back in 1978 and although I spent my life as a trial attorney, I have been actively programming since 1978, more so than ever now that I am retired. My primary reason for being here is to keep up with hi-tech. I will definitely do my best to limit my comments to the tech arena.

nkurz 2y ago
I don't thank that Dan is saying that the discussion is best held elsewhere. And I don't think he's saying it shouldn't be held. I take his point to be that if you are going to start that discussion, you are responsible for the overall effect it's going to have on the conversation. When he says "a comment like that would need to be written in a particularly flame-retardant style" he's asking you to write your comments the same way you've done for the two comments directed at him: as if you are trying to persuade someone intelligent who happens to disagree with you. There's no need "limit your comments to the tech arena". It sounds like we'd be better off if you bring your full experience---not too many people know both law and programming. But please do it in the style of these excellent follow-up responses rather than the flame-bait you started with!