5 ms·

Notice I did not accuse her of anything, simply stating two facts. Why the down votes? All I am saying is that whoever made the threats clearly doesn't want the

by kelvin0 12y ago

Notice I did not accuse her of anything, simply stating two facts. Why the down votes? All I am saying is that whoever made the threats clearly doesn't want the issue to go away ... Come on guys!

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
idlewords 12y ago
You're getting downvoted because of the obvious and obnoxious insinuation.
- kelvin0 12y ago
  Being obnoxious is purely subjective to your perception. Does that make it any less valuable?
  - otikik 12y ago
    Your non-obnoxiousness is purely subjective to your perception.
    - kelvin0 12y ago
      Comedy gold right here folks! :)
retrocombine 12y ago
Don't simply say "why the downvotes". Back up your argument with facts and reasoning, and if you're right, it should stand on its own. If you're getting downvotes...you aren't right.
- kelvin0 12y ago
  I know this subject is emotionally charged for most people. If you read my statements objectively I hope to help you perceive a different perspective, no need to embrace it. I wish you well.
  - CocaKoala 12y ago
    I read your statement objectively. You said that if she had manufactured this crisis, it would be a machiavellian stunt. Can you present even a single shred of evidence that she's manufacturing the crisis? Because until you present that evidence, you're not actually presenting facts that are relevant to the discussion. You might as well say "If she were an alien, this might be part of her plan to take over the world". It's impossible to respond to that, because while it might be true (if she were an alien, maybe you've discovered her plan!) but to the best of our knowledge, she's not an alien and hypothesizing about her motives if she were is a waste of everybody's time. What's even worse is that you're presenting hypotheticals as facts and then pretending not to understand what you're doing and claiming that people are disagreeing with you on emotional reasons, when the only emotion they're feeling is rage that you're wasting their time. This could be an opportunity for an actual discussion and you're just chucking garbage at the wall and then asking "jeeze you guys why don't you like my garbage?"
    - kelvin0 12y ago
      I do not know of any evidence, nor do I wish to investigate if there is any with regards to the 'manufactured' hypothesis. Reading the article, I had a flash of an interesting twist of events (as improbable as it is). This whole debate is not even about her, but how some people could use this scenario to manipulate the public's attention and polarize the discussion. I like considering things from different angles, which I thought was what Hacker News was about in some measure.
      - CocaKoala 12y ago
        Considering things from different angles is a useful thing to do, and may well be what Hacker News is about. Considering things from useless angles that have no bearing on the discussion doesn't contribute to anything and only serves to confuse the issue at hand. What is the benefit of discussing an arbitrary hypothetical that's so radical and unsupportable that even the individual who proposes it immediately backs off of the position instead of putting an ounce of effort into providing evidence? Maybe the whole thing is manufactured by Putin. Maybe the entire chain of events is related to the Kennedy assassination. Maybe Anita Sarkeesian is actually the Lindburgh Baby. Maybe Zoe Quinn's ex-boyfriend is the son of the gunsmith who made the Magic Bullet. There are millions of hypotheticals out there, and no benefit to discussing all of them. You're a literal conspiracy theorist; do you understand that you're equivalent to somebody posting that picture of the UFO and saying, "I believe!"?
smackfu 12y ago
"Just stating facts" is a pretty weasely way to back away from what you were implying in that comment.
CocaKoala 12y ago
Because you're not stating facts which are relevant. You're saying "If she did [x] it would be [y]". That might be objectively true, but you're not presenting any evidence that she's doing [x] and so it doesn't matter. It's an incredibly obnoxious thing to do, and honestly in this context it's pretty disgusting.
- kelvin0 12y ago
  I was not trying to state any of the scenarios I presented as facts. Please do not be disgusted by so little.
  - CocaKoala 12y ago
    >I was not trying to state any of the scenarios I presented as facts. Oh, I'm sorry. I must have gotten confused when you said "Notice I did not accuse her of anything, simply stating two facts."; I took that to mean that you were simply stating two facts, and in fact you were trying to say literally the exact opposite of what you said. You should maybe work on saying things which are not one hundred percent false.
    - kelvin0 12y ago
      OK, so buy me a beer I will explain in person. Much simpler. I stand by my original comment, but this was never meant to be 'backed up' by any facts. Somewhere along this thread people are talking about conceal carry weapons, this is off topic. At least my comment had the merit of considering the topic at hand with a hypothetical scenario that got waaaay to much attention. I am always surprised by some reactions on HN, it makes for interesting discussions.
      - CocaKoala 12y ago
        What? Why would I buy you a beer? You've done nothing but lie to me and skate around your words in what can only be either an attempt to spread doubt on the validity of a horrifying situation, or a manifestation of an appalling lack of self awareness. How are you standing by your original comment? edit: What I'm really looking for is any evidence at all that you're trying to debate in good faith. All of you've done is present a bullshit hypothetical that's entirely unrelated, try to claim that you're "just presenting some facts", write off everybody who disagrees with you as "emotional", and then handwave it away when somebody actually calls you on your crap.

by kelvin0 12y ago

Notice I did not accuse her of anything, simply stating two facts. Why the down votes? All I am saying is that whoever made the threats clearly doesn't want the issue to go away ... Come on guys!

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

idlewords 12y ago

You're getting downvoted because of the obvious and obnoxious insinuation.

kelvin0 12y ago
Being obnoxious is purely subjective to your perception. Does that make it any less valuable?
- otikik 12y ago
  Your non-obnoxiousness is purely subjective to your perception.
  - kelvin0 12y ago
    Comedy gold right here folks! :)

retrocombine 12y ago

Don't simply say "why the downvotes". Back up your argument with facts and reasoning, and if you're right, it should stand on its own. If you're getting downvotes...you aren't right.

kelvin0 12y ago
I know this subject is emotionally charged for most people. If you read my statements objectively I hope to help you perceive a different perspective, no need to embrace it. I wish you well.
- CocaKoala 12y ago
  I read your statement objectively. You said that if she had manufactured this crisis, it would be a machiavellian stunt. Can you present even a single shred of evidence that she's manufacturing the crisis? Because until you present that evidence, you're not actually presenting facts that are relevant to the discussion. You might as well say "If she were an alien, this might be part of her plan to take over the world". It's impossible to respond to that, because while it might be true (if she were an alien, maybe you've discovered her plan!) but to the best of our knowledge, she's not an alien and hypothesizing about her motives if she were is a waste of everybody's time. What's even worse is that you're presenting hypotheticals as facts and then pretending not to understand what you're doing and claiming that people are disagreeing with you on emotional reasons, when the only emotion they're feeling is rage that you're wasting their time. This could be an opportunity for an actual discussion and you're just chucking garbage at the wall and then asking "jeeze you guys why don't you like my garbage?"
  - kelvin0 12y ago
    I do not know of any evidence, nor do I wish to investigate if there is any with regards to the 'manufactured' hypothesis. Reading the article, I had a flash of an interesting twist of events (as improbable as it is). This whole debate is not even about her, but how some people could use this scenario to manipulate the public's attention and polarize the discussion. I like considering things from different angles, which I thought was what Hacker News was about in some measure.
    - CocaKoala 12y ago
      Considering things from different angles is a useful thing to do, and may well be what Hacker News is about. Considering things from useless angles that have no bearing on the discussion doesn't contribute to anything and only serves to confuse the issue at hand. What is the benefit of discussing an arbitrary hypothetical that's so radical and unsupportable that even the individual who proposes it immediately backs off of the position instead of putting an ounce of effort into providing evidence? Maybe the whole thing is manufactured by Putin. Maybe the entire chain of events is related to the Kennedy assassination. Maybe Anita Sarkeesian is actually the Lindburgh Baby. Maybe Zoe Quinn's ex-boyfriend is the son of the gunsmith who made the Magic Bullet. There are millions of hypotheticals out there, and no benefit to discussing all of them. You're a literal conspiracy theorist; do you understand that you're equivalent to somebody posting that picture of the UFO and saying, "I believe!"?

smackfu 12y ago

"Just stating facts" is a pretty weasely way to back away from what you were implying in that comment.

CocaKoala 12y ago

Because you're not stating facts which are relevant. You're saying "If she did [x] it would be [y]". That might be objectively true, but you're not presenting any evidence that she's doing [x] and so it doesn't matter. It's an incredibly obnoxious thing to do, and honestly in this context it's pretty disgusting.

kelvin0 12y ago
I was not trying to state any of the scenarios I presented as facts. Please do not be disgusted by so little.
- CocaKoala 12y ago
  >I was not trying to state any of the scenarios I presented as facts. Oh, I'm sorry. I must have gotten confused when you said "Notice I did not accuse her of anything, simply stating two facts."; I took that to mean that you were simply stating two facts, and in fact you were trying to say literally the exact opposite of what you said. You should maybe work on saying things which are not one hundred percent false.
  - kelvin0 12y ago
    OK, so buy me a beer I will explain in person. Much simpler. I stand by my original comment, but this was never meant to be 'backed up' by any facts. Somewhere along this thread people are talking about conceal carry weapons, this is off topic. At least my comment had the merit of considering the topic at hand with a hypothetical scenario that got waaaay to much attention. I am always surprised by some reactions on HN, it makes for interesting discussions.
    - CocaKoala 12y ago
      What? Why would I buy you a beer? You've done nothing but lie to me and skate around your words in what can only be either an attempt to spread doubt on the validity of a horrifying situation, or a manifestation of an appalling lack of self awareness. How are you standing by your original comment? edit: What I'm really looking for is any evidence at all that you're trying to debate in good faith. All of you've done is present a bullshit hypothetical that's entirely unrelated, try to claim that you're "just presenting some facts", write off everybody who disagrees with you as "emotional", and then handwave it away when somebody actually calls you on your crap.