4 ms·
I didn't downvote you despite my almost reflexive tendency to downvote posts bitching about being downvoted. That said, I was strongly inclined to ding you for
by rosser 12y ago
I didn't downvote you despite my almost reflexive tendency to downvote posts bitching about being downvoted.
That said, I was strongly inclined to ding you for the sarcasm. Any point you might have been trying to make is obscured by the cloud of superiority and smugness your tone radiates, and, personally, I find that both off-putting and un-constructive. You could most assuredly use this invention as a means of starting a discussion about crap patents — a position with which I probably even agree in this instance — without burying your point beneath your invective.
- logicallee 12y agoThe fact that one of the responses, ronaldx, completely agrees with the point that I put in sarcasm, stating "The problem is that your sarcastic position sounds pretty good to me", shows that while the position seems smug and superior to you, it is actually a reasonable one around here. The sarcastic part literally sounds pretty good to people here, and two posters have expressed agreement with it. And look at the result. We have two very good comments agreeing with the sarcastic part (or denying its premise), and which we can now turn to.
- rosser 12y agoAgain, I'm not saying your position is wrong. I'm saying that your point is buried beneath your sarcasm and your ceaseless series of edits and revisions.
- logicallee 12y agorosser: please bear in mind that while you are saying "I'm not saying your position is wrong", two respondents actually agree with the position taken in the marked "sarcastic part" :) so this certainly identifies an avenue for discussion, even if you do not prefer this way of bringing it up.
- yownie 12y agoPlease keep in mind what the poster is saying then, despite your position being worthy of discussion your tone is stifling enough as to make further discussion unpalatable.
- logicallee 12y agoI believe it is the facts in this case that make the discussion unpalatable for certain posters. For example, separately, I actually wrote to this company during the comment thread, and received a reply. I found their reply very informative and posted it to the main thread (here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7753308 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7753308) with a simple statement which nobody could find objectionable. It is my impression that someone nevertheless managed to find the facts themselves objectionable.
- icebraining 12y agoWhat "facts"? The fact that it wasn't any company research, but actually university-funded? The fact that the inventor was doing a PhD, not working for free?
- logicallee 12y agoYes, those facts among others. If anything these facts imply he "wouldn't have needed" his patents, in order to get funded and build the thing.