5 ms·

You could have just answered "I don't think that." Or, you know, given me the exact response you just typed.... It really was not my intention to ask you a lo

by jlgreco 13y ago

You could have just answered "I don't think that." Or, you know, given me the exact response you just typed.... It really was not my intention to ask you a loaded question. Instead of calling my question childish, you should consider the possibility that your comment is not nearly as clear as you seem to think.

jasonlotito 13y ago
I explained exactly why wasn't going to answer your question in my response. "That's a loaded question and I'm not going to play that game" I picked the words carefully and precisely. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question > you should consider the possibility that your comment is not nearly as clear as you seem to think. I realize that people might not be native english speakers. I make the assumption people will ask if they are unsure or not clear. You made no indication you were either. Another commenter was not clear, and so I clarified. If you didn't find it clear, why didn't you ask for clarification on why I thought it was a loaded question? Or, what I meant by calling it a loaded question? > It really was not my intention to ask you a loaded question. But you did. And I explained as much, and left it at that.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  I am sensing a lot of continued hostility here. I am not sure why, since we apparently do not disagree, and since I have made it clear that I did not have any malicious intent. > I make the assumption people will ask if they are unsure or not clear. You have misunderstood me. I did not find your comment to be unclear after reading it. However my take-away from your comment was incorrect. Complaining about a loaded question, instead of simply and civilly correcting me ("I don't think that"), came off very strongly as a dodge. Or, as kordless describes, "conversation killer". I hope this clears up any lingering confusion.
  - jasonlotito 13y ago
    > I am sensing a lot of continued hostility here. There is zero in my last comment. Maybe you could highlight what statement I made that was in any way hostile. I was precise, polite, and stated clearly my position. The only one being hostile is you. > I am not sure why, since we apparently do not disagree What makes you think that? > instead of simply and civilly correcting me ("I don't think that") Why do you keep making assumptions? Why do you keep trying to assert my position, despite me never saying "I don't think that." Heck, putting it in quotes is dangerous enough. > "conversation killer" Your continued attempts to put words in my mouth is a conversation killer, even if you don't intend to do it. Your problem is that from the first reply, you've been trying to read more into what I said. You've been trying to categorize me. Rather than simply take the comment I said at face value, you've been trying to see some inner motive. This is clear from your loaded question, or your belief that I'm trying to dodge a question. Even now you continue to try to pin me down into a belief that I find beside the point, would have derailed the original conversation. > I hope this clears up any lingering confusion. I'm not confused with what I've said. And, frankly, I've stated it clearly from the first comment. That you've inferred more every step of the way is simply because you are confused. I honestly don't think whatever I type here will matter though, as despite being factual, precise, and concise in my previous comments, people have found ways to ignore the facts, infer whatever they wanted, and consider the brevity to be something more. It would be far easier if we read what was written, and stopped trying to imagine more.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      Listen, I'm not a robot. When I read a post, I read what is literally being said, and I read between the lines; I look for subtext, and implications. I am not going to stop doing tihs. Maybe when you write those things never exist, but I don't believe that. I'm going back with my original assumption, which is that are dodging any attempt to address the subtext and implications in your posts because you want them to go unchallenged. You are making these implications, we are challenging them, and you are dodging. tl;dr: kelnos nails it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6520055 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6520055
      - 13y ago
kordless 13y ago
I agree. Talk about a conversation killer. Considering he was speaking for kelnos at the time, I think your query seems reasonable and actually expands on the concept around what types of conversations should be managed by our government. Shouting "FIRE" in a theater is, and should be, against the law. It's a clear violation of trust, poses significant risk the the recipients, and is being done in a place that is clearly owned by someone. I'm cool with the police being in charge of enforcing rules that prevent this. Assuming they are also in charge of policing the Internet effectively is another matter entirely.

by jlgreco 13y ago

jasonlotito 13y ago

I explained exactly why wasn't going to answer your question in my response. "That's a loaded question and I'm not going to play that game" I picked the words carefully and precisely. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question > you should consider the possibility that your comment is not nearly as clear as you seem to think. I realize that people might not be native english speakers. I make the assumption people will ask if they are unsure or not clear. You made no indication you were either. Another commenter was not clear, and so I clarified. If you didn't find it clear, why didn't you ask for clarification on why I thought it was a loaded question? Or, what I meant by calling it a loaded question? > It really was not my intention to ask you a loaded question. But you did. And I explained as much, and left it at that.

jlgreco 13y ago
I am sensing a lot of continued hostility here. I am not sure why, since we apparently do not disagree, and since I have made it clear that I did not have any malicious intent. > I make the assumption people will ask if they are unsure or not clear. You have misunderstood me. I did not find your comment to be unclear after reading it. However my take-away from your comment was incorrect. Complaining about a loaded question, instead of simply and civilly correcting me ("I don't think that"), came off very strongly as a dodge. Or, as kordless describes, "conversation killer". I hope this clears up any lingering confusion.
- jasonlotito 13y ago
  > I am sensing a lot of continued hostility here. There is zero in my last comment. Maybe you could highlight what statement I made that was in any way hostile. I was precise, polite, and stated clearly my position. The only one being hostile is you. > I am not sure why, since we apparently do not disagree What makes you think that? > instead of simply and civilly correcting me ("I don't think that") Why do you keep making assumptions? Why do you keep trying to assert my position, despite me never saying "I don't think that." Heck, putting it in quotes is dangerous enough. > "conversation killer" Your continued attempts to put words in my mouth is a conversation killer, even if you don't intend to do it. Your problem is that from the first reply, you've been trying to read more into what I said. You've been trying to categorize me. Rather than simply take the comment I said at face value, you've been trying to see some inner motive. This is clear from your loaded question, or your belief that I'm trying to dodge a question. Even now you continue to try to pin me down into a belief that I find beside the point, would have derailed the original conversation. > I hope this clears up any lingering confusion. I'm not confused with what I've said. And, frankly, I've stated it clearly from the first comment. That you've inferred more every step of the way is simply because you are confused. I honestly don't think whatever I type here will matter though, as despite being factual, precise, and concise in my previous comments, people have found ways to ignore the facts, infer whatever they wanted, and consider the brevity to be something more. It would be far easier if we read what was written, and stopped trying to imagine more.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Listen, I'm not a robot. When I read a post, I read what is literally being said, and I read between the lines; I look for subtext, and implications. I am not going to stop doing tihs. Maybe when you write those things never exist, but I don't believe that. I'm going back with my original assumption, which is that are dodging any attempt to address the subtext and implications in your posts because you want them to go unchallenged. You are making these implications, we are challenging them, and you are dodging. tl;dr: kelnos nails it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6520055 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6520055
    - 13y ago

kordless 13y ago

I agree. Talk about a conversation killer. Considering he was speaking for kelnos at the time, I think your query seems reasonable and actually expands on the concept around what types of conversations should be managed by our government. Shouting "FIRE" in a theater is, and should be, against the law. It's a clear violation of trust, poses significant risk the the recipients, and is being done in a place that is clearly owned by someone. I'm cool with the police being in charge of enforcing rules that prevent this. Assuming they are also in charge of policing the Internet effectively is another matter entirely.