4 ms·

Your comment is the one that was disingenuous. tedivm: blaming congress is an easy way out. Congress themselves have complained that the executive branch has b

by swombat 13y ago

Your comment is the one that was disingenuous. tedivm: blaming congress is an easy way out. Congress themselves have complained that the executive branch has been overstepping the boundaries it had set in secret. you: really? evidence? logn: here you go. Senators have repeatedly complained that the laws are being deliberately misinterpreted. you: blargh! laws exist simultaneously in multiple forms, you can't possibly expect them to be applied exactly as they've been phrased! There's a word for that: apologism. Why are you stooping to that? Stop defending those who don't deserve your efforts to defend them. You're a highly reputable security expert and founder of a highly reputable security business. You have enormous credibility with the HN crowd and outside of it (hell, you're the top commenter on https://news.ycombinator.com/leaders https://news.ycombinator.com/leaders by karma, by 70'000 points!). But with every one of these comments in which you defend these people for no reason other than wordplay you lose a little bit of that reputation, at least with me.

sillysaurus2 13y ago
You're a highly reputable security expert and founder of a highly reputable security business. You have enormous credibility with the HN crowd and outside of it (hell, you're the top commenter on https://news.ycombinator.com/leaders https://news.ycombinator.com/leaders by karma, by 70'000 points!). But with every one of these comments in which you defend these people for no reason other than wordplay you lose a little bit of that reputation, at least with me. You seem to be worried that people will be persuaded by tptacek just because he's tptacek, rather than by the content of his comments. But, somewhat ironically, you're helping that process along by being so emotional when countering his arguments. E.g. I wouldn't want to associate myself with what you're advocating: "Don't think. Trust your feelings." So even if there's some truth to what you say, it's obscured by the way you're expressing it. EDIT: I've figured out what's upsetting about this exchange. You're not trying to change his mind. That would require you give him some credit, and you seem unable to. You're just trying to attack him (poorly). If forum members don't resist that sort of feeling, then forums will degenerate into flamewars. Therefore what you're doing now is poisonous to HN.
- swombat 13y ago
  That is not what I am advocating. Please read my other comment. I am worried that every time one of these arguments pop up, tptacek suddenly sprouts fifteen heads like a hydra and starts defending "the system". That worries me, because I don't understand why he feels that is worthy of his time, and none of the explanations I can come up with are satisfactory in view of his standing in the community. Volumes of comments can appear convincing even though they are made by a single person (I've experienced that in flame war situations). Edit: Perhaps. In any case, I need to go now, so I'll stop and let this rest. That said, I'm still worried.
  - MisterWebz 13y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6422824 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6422824
tptacek 13y ago
Do you honestly think you can bully me into unquestioning acceptance of your premises? Has that ever worked with any HN user? Also, your summary of the thread so far is very inaccurate.
- swombat 13y ago
  I'm not trying to bully anyone. What's your better summary?
  - tptacek 13y ago
    When you bring someone's professional reputation into a discussion that has nothing to do with that person's profession and then make the claim that their comments risk impacting that professional reputation, that's bullying. It also signals a carelessness about professionalism on your part: when you say that your opinions about someone's professional reputation depends in some way on their politics, you are implicitly warning your peers that information they get about professionals from you is tainted by your own political opinions. It's a bad rhetorical strategy and you should reconsider ever using it again. As for your summary of the conversation, here is what actually happened: * The story is about DOJ adopting a policy of providing notice when evidence in a case is derived from surveillance intelligence. * The top of the thread suggests that this was a politically good move for Obama, who is (according to that commenter) essentially required to execute surveillance policies set up by Congress. * The comment I replied to refuted that argument by suggesting that the Obama administration has little respect for the laws of Congress to begin with. * I replied by suggesting that refutation conflated a lack of transparency in an area of law specifically designed by Congress not to be transparent with a general contempt for the laws of Congress, which contempt is not actually in evidence. I also, as you pointedly refused to acknowledge, expressed dissatisfaction with that state of affairs. * Various commenters cited evidence of a lack of respect for the laws of Congress which were, to my eyes, all further evidence of the former point (opaqueness and "flexibility" in an area of law that was designed to be opaque and open-ended) and not the latter. I then refined my comment to be about criminal law, which is the subject of the story the thread is based on. * Along comes 'swombat to tell me that I'm an apologist for the state, a not-credible human being, and at risk of putting my professional reputation in doubt. I think a close reading of the thread will bear my interpretation out, and, more importantly, show how different that interpretation is from the one you provided.

by swombat 13y ago

sillysaurus2 13y ago

You're a highly reputable security expert and founder of a highly reputable security business. You have enormous credibility with the HN crowd and outside of it (hell, you're the top commenter on https://news.ycombinator.com/leaders https://news.ycombinator.com/leaders by karma, by 70'000 points!). But with every one of these comments in which you defend these people for no reason other than wordplay you lose a little bit of that reputation, at least with me. You seem to be worried that people will be persuaded by tptacek just because he's tptacek, rather than by the content of his comments. But, somewhat ironically, you're helping that process along by being so emotional when countering his arguments. E.g. I wouldn't want to associate myself with what you're advocating: "Don't think. Trust your feelings." So even if there's some truth to what you say, it's obscured by the way you're expressing it. EDIT: I've figured out what's upsetting about this exchange. You're not trying to change his mind. That would require you give him some credit, and you seem unable to. You're just trying to attack him (poorly). If forum members don't resist that sort of feeling, then forums will degenerate into flamewars. Therefore what you're doing now is poisonous to HN.

swombat 13y ago
That is not what I am advocating. Please read my other comment. I am worried that every time one of these arguments pop up, tptacek suddenly sprouts fifteen heads like a hydra and starts defending "the system". That worries me, because I don't understand why he feels that is worthy of his time, and none of the explanations I can come up with are satisfactory in view of his standing in the community. Volumes of comments can appear convincing even though they are made by a single person (I've experienced that in flame war situations). Edit: Perhaps. In any case, I need to go now, so I'll stop and let this rest. That said, I'm still worried.
- MisterWebz 13y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6422824 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6422824

tptacek 13y ago

Do you honestly think you can bully me into unquestioning acceptance of your premises? Has that ever worked with any HN user? Also, your summary of the thread so far is very inaccurate.

swombat 13y ago
I'm not trying to bully anyone. What's your better summary?
- tptacek 13y ago
  When you bring someone's professional reputation into a discussion that has nothing to do with that person's profession and then make the claim that their comments risk impacting that professional reputation, that's bullying. It also signals a carelessness about professionalism on your part: when you say that your opinions about someone's professional reputation depends in some way on their politics, you are implicitly warning your peers that information they get about professionals from you is tainted by your own political opinions. It's a bad rhetorical strategy and you should reconsider ever using it again. As for your summary of the conversation, here is what actually happened: * The story is about DOJ adopting a policy of providing notice when evidence in a case is derived from surveillance intelligence. * The top of the thread suggests that this was a politically good move for Obama, who is (according to that commenter) essentially required to execute surveillance policies set up by Congress. * The comment I replied to refuted that argument by suggesting that the Obama administration has little respect for the laws of Congress to begin with. * I replied by suggesting that refutation conflated a lack of transparency in an area of law specifically designed by Congress not to be transparent with a general contempt for the laws of Congress, which contempt is not actually in evidence. I also, as you pointedly refused to acknowledge, expressed dissatisfaction with that state of affairs. * Various commenters cited evidence of a lack of respect for the laws of Congress which were, to my eyes, all further evidence of the former point (opaqueness and "flexibility" in an area of law that was designed to be opaque and open-ended) and not the latter. I then refined my comment to be about criminal law, which is the subject of the story the thread is based on. * Along comes 'swombat to tell me that I'm an apologist for the state, a not-credible human being, and at risk of putting my professional reputation in doubt. I think a close reading of the thread will bear my interpretation out, and, more importantly, show how different that interpretation is from the one you provided.