3 ms·
"unthoughtful"? "toxic"? Those are what wikipedia would call "weasel words". If you have some rational criticism, spill it out and we'll deal with it like adult
by stefantalpalaru 13y ago
"unthoughtful"? "toxic"? Those are what wikipedia would call "weasel words". If you have some rational criticism, spill it out and we'll deal with it like adults. Hiding your censorship under "obvious" labels is bad.
- dang 13y agoThis isn't Wikipedia. We're happy to learn, but we're not going to import. I notice that this is the second time you've challenged me with personally charged language. If you have more to say, email would be better. Edited for clarity.
- stefantalpalaru 13y ago> Edited for clarity. I prefer the original, overtly aggressive and unapologetically abusive version. At least with that we know where we stand.
- dang 13y agoThe original was: "This isn't Wikipedia. We prefer to think for ourselves here". My meaning was that we prefer to find solutions that are appropriate for HN rather than copying what another site does. Since my original wording left room for misunderstanding, I changed it. (I do that all the time, incidentally; I am a compulsive, inveterate editor, and always have been.) If that is what you call "unapologetically abusive", we have nothing further to discuss. I'm going to invest time answering users we have a hope of satisfying.