4 ms·
cma's question was to me, after my comment, not to you. You are inserting your interruption into that. You argued that cma's question had a very particular inte
by davorak 2y ago
cma's question was to me, after my comment, not to you. You are inserting your interruption into that. You argued that cma's question had a very particular interruption, sort of speaking for them, let them speak for themselves, or at least I am not interested in dissecting their comment's meaning with you. edit or maybe a better way to put it is that I can not have a conversation with you when you seem to be trying to speak for them.
- 9rx 2y ago> cma's question was to me I clearly replied to your comment, not cma's. > You are inserting your interruption into that. There are no interruptions in a threaded discussion. cma can reply to your comment in parallel. I do appreciate you bringing your misunderstandings to light, though. > let them speak for themselves He can if he so wishes. > or at least I am not interested in dissecting their comment's meaning with you. Oh? - "cma's question was to me" On an open public forum all comments are written for all users by default. Only through dissecting meaning with me would you be able to determine this to be the case. Why lie?
- davorak 2y ago> Why lie? I will refer you to the guidelines > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- 9rx 2y agoThanks. I don't really see how that applies, but I welcome us diving into your dissection so that we can clear up any misunderstandings and to learn from it for the sake of the future.