3 ms·
One, I don't think it's the HN law that all threads should follow in some precise linearity: there's such a thing as free-form debate. Two, my comment did have
by clicks 13y ago
One, I don't think it's the HN law that all threads should follow in some precise linearity: there's such a thing as free-form debate. Two, my comment did have something to do with your comment. Three, you very often reply like this -- "did you read what I said?" -- not that it matters much to me personally, but can you please start making an effort of at least trying to communicate such things in a little more civilized manner? The tone of such comments is often toxic and inflammatory.
- oinksoft 13y agoHis authoritarian tone squares nicely with his approach to ethics as expressed in threads like these.
- tptacek 13y agoThe idea you took away from my comment was the opposite of the idea that it communicated. You decided that my comment was an endorsement of amorality. It wasn't. Now that you've been called out on that, you wriggle and writhe through all sorts of meta-commentary to avoid acknowledging your misperception.
- clicks 13y agoFunny, I also happen to think that the idea you took away from my comment was the opposite of the idea that it communicated. Okay, forgive me for getting even more meta here, but: You're operating under the assumption that I would doggedly stick to my misinterpretation (if it were the case), or maybe that I have some agenda to distort the messages in your comments? My comment history suggests otherwise: I'm more than happy to back off, apologize, and recant any misguided statements I make if it's pointed out rationally. Why doesn't the idea of calmly, non-abrasively trying to explain the breakdown in communication occur to you? Why are you so quick to elevate differences into an us-vs-them orientation on a personal level?