4 ms·
Your points are totally valid, and I agree with you insomuch that I think the comment you replied to is a poorly-informed work of reductionism, but you're being
by Centigonal 12y ago
Your points are totally valid, and I agree with you insomuch that I think the comment you replied to is a poorly-informed work of reductionism, but you're being very abrasive yourself as well.
You practically gave your parent commenter a verbal beat-down over his grasp of journalistic ethics. The guy said a bunch of mostly wrong things, but he made a few good points, too!
- alexqgb 12y agoSorry. For what it's worth, it wasn't his poor grasp of journalistic ethics that attracted my opprobrium. The sharply negative reaction was prompted by the general dishonesty of his remarks and specifically his tendency to reframe the remarks of others in a way that egregiously misconstrued or misrepresented what they had to say.
- dang 12y agoI'm afraid this is a non-apology that does the same thing all over again. Let's suppose you're 100% right. Please don't squander that rightness on pejorative epithets and personal attacks. Doing so is wrong, breaks the HN guidelines, makes you look like the jerk in the argument, and makes your position seem weak. That last point is a big deal: since by hypothesis you're right, roiling the waters like this impedes the pursuit of the truth for everyone. Instead, identify what's wrong and point it out clearly without personal attacks. That's easier said than done, of course, but by hypothesis it has to be possible, and it's your duty to honest readers to try.
- alexqgb 12y agoFair points, duly noted.