6 ms·

"What happened to open and honest discussions?" I just went through your recent comment history and it's pretty clear you're interested in no such thing. You'v

"What happened to open and honest discussions?" I just went through your recent comment history and it's pretty clear you're interested in no such thing. You've been blindly repeating Fox News style prepared talking points without regards to actual information presented to you. As an example this was explained to you in another subthread below: "Regulatory orders aren't generally published before being approved by the initiating authority (preliminary notices that are subject to revision before being approved are published when those are approved by the authority, as was the case with the NPRM on this issue published last year. The final decision based on the NPRM and public comment received since the NPRM, is what was voted on today, which will then be published. This is the processed followed by basically every regulatory body for virtually every regulatory action in the US government (sometimes there isn't an advanced notice like the NPRM, however.)" by dragonwriter As just one more examples out of dozens more, here's what tzs explained to you in another thread yesterday: --- > The FCC has a 332 page plan to regulate the Internet (which the public does not have a chance to even look over before it is passed) No, the FCC does not have a 332 page plan to regulate the internet. Tom Wheeler has a plan, although it is much much shorter to 332. The 300+ pages is for a document that includes his plan, a long explanation of the reasons and the authorities for each part, and a long look at the large number of comments that were received after last years FCC plan. The FCC will have a plan if the Commissioners vote in a couple day to make adopt Wheeler's plan, at which point it will then be available for public comment so that we can all see it and comment. After that, the FCC decides to adopt it or not. --- Seeing your ad-nauseam repetition of the same talking points while utterly disregarding cogent responses to them, it's a pretty safe bet that your opinions and desire for "open and honest discussion" carries as much weight as those of party hacks screaming at each other on cable news.

Alupis 12y ago
> I just went through your recent comment history and it's pretty clear you're interested in no such thing. You've been blindly repeating Fox News style > Seeing your ad-nauseam repetition of the same talking points Attack the argument -- not the person.
- chetanahuja 12y ago
  My thesis is that these accounts are not here for legitimate argument. They are here to spread FUD via talking points. I attempted to prove the futility of attacking the arguments by showing that they have been clearly countered before while failing to budge this account from their fixed talking points.
  - dang 12y ago
    > My thesis is that these accounts are not here for legitimate argument. If you suspect accounts of not being here for legitimate purposes you are welcome to email your suspicions to us at hn@ycombinator.com. But it's not ok to make accusations of astroturfing in HN threads. The degradation it causes to the discourse is obvious from the current discussion alone: wherever it comes up turns into a toxic waste pond. Personally accusing paulhauggis of being a shill just because you don't like his politics is one of the worst examples I've seen. I think you owe him an apology. Even if you're right that someone refuses to change his mind when shown superior arguments, the only thing that entitles you to accuse them of is human nature.
  - Alupis 12y ago
    > My thesis is that these accounts are not here for legitimate argument. They are here to spread FUD via talking points If you feel anyone's opinion that isn't your own is somehow FUD, that's a problem. For example, you are unlikely to change my viewpoint or opinion on a great number of things, even through well thought-out and concise arguments. I also happen to believe Fox News isn't as terrible as a lot of people like to think (they are, after all, the news network with the most viewership and highest ratings year after year). Point being, you shouldn't attack individuals because they don't agree with you (or the popular opinion). You should attack their argument. And clearly someone who's invested enough time into getting 1K+ upvotes isn't a drive-by-night account. I get suspicious when new accounts post that were created on or around when the article was posted, and/or accounts with very long account history but almost no comments and no upvotes (why go 500 days with no comment but now you post?).
    - 12y ago
paulhauggis 12y ago
"I just went through your recent comment history and it's pretty clear you're interested in no such thing. You've been blindly repeating Fox News style prepared talking points without regards to actual information presented to you. As an example this was explained to you in another subthread below:" I don't watch Fox news, sorry (I cut cable years ago). I know it may come as a shock to you that people actually think critically about a situation, but this is what I am doing. I have brought up many good points and concerns, and they seem to be getting side-tracked and you are (attempting) to discredit me. "Seeing your ad-nauseam repetition of the same talking points while utterly disregarding cogent responses to them" Look at my response. He said there is a 300+ page plan and now we know there are 700 regulatory rules that still have not seen. Can you show them to me? This would stop me from asking. "As just one more examples out of dozens more, here's what tzs explained to you in another thread yesterday:" So, I ask for more transparency and your response is another poster that basically said that it's not done this way. Can you tell me why it isn't done this way and why, going forward, it shouldn't? Now, instead of trying to delve into my past and attack me personally (which is usually a red flag for me, but I will ignore it), tell me: 1) What are the 700 regulations and why should I not be able to see them? My business and my life runs through the Internet and I pretty much use it every day. I should have some say in rules that will now be imposed on me. 2) Even if we get to see proposals before regulations and laws are in place, it's still not a vote. In the very beginning, we will probably see no change with the new regulations. It's 5 or 10 years down the line that's still unknown. By this time, people will not associate the higher bills and other effects with this new regulation and politicians will push the blame on something else. I'm actually shocked that intelligent people have no problem just giving their rights away in the blink of an eye.

Alupis 12y ago

> I just went through your recent comment history and it's pretty clear you're interested in no such thing. You've been blindly repeating Fox News style > Seeing your ad-nauseam repetition of the same talking points Attack the argument -- not the person.

chetanahuja 12y ago
My thesis is that these accounts are not here for legitimate argument. They are here to spread FUD via talking points. I attempted to prove the futility of attacking the arguments by showing that they have been clearly countered before while failing to budge this account from their fixed talking points.
- dang 12y ago
  > My thesis is that these accounts are not here for legitimate argument. If you suspect accounts of not being here for legitimate purposes you are welcome to email your suspicions to us at hn@ycombinator.com. But it's not ok to make accusations of astroturfing in HN threads. The degradation it causes to the discourse is obvious from the current discussion alone: wherever it comes up turns into a toxic waste pond. Personally accusing paulhauggis of being a shill just because you don't like his politics is one of the worst examples I've seen. I think you owe him an apology. Even if you're right that someone refuses to change his mind when shown superior arguments, the only thing that entitles you to accuse them of is human nature.
- Alupis 12y ago
  > My thesis is that these accounts are not here for legitimate argument. They are here to spread FUD via talking points If you feel anyone's opinion that isn't your own is somehow FUD, that's a problem. For example, you are unlikely to change my viewpoint or opinion on a great number of things, even through well thought-out and concise arguments. I also happen to believe Fox News isn't as terrible as a lot of people like to think (they are, after all, the news network with the most viewership and highest ratings year after year). Point being, you shouldn't attack individuals because they don't agree with you (or the popular opinion). You should attack their argument. And clearly someone who's invested enough time into getting 1K+ upvotes isn't a drive-by-night account. I get suspicious when new accounts post that were created on or around when the article was posted, and/or accounts with very long account history but almost no comments and no upvotes (why go 500 days with no comment but now you post?).
  - 12y ago

paulhauggis 12y ago

"I just went through your recent comment history and it's pretty clear you're interested in no such thing. You've been blindly repeating Fox News style prepared talking points without regards to actual information presented to you. As an example this was explained to you in another subthread below:" I don't watch Fox news, sorry (I cut cable years ago). I know it may come as a shock to you that people actually think critically about a situation, but this is what I am doing. I have brought up many good points and concerns, and they seem to be getting side-tracked and you are (attempting) to discredit me. "Seeing your ad-nauseam repetition of the same talking points while utterly disregarding cogent responses to them" Look at my response. He said there is a 300+ page plan and now we know there are 700 regulatory rules that still have not seen. Can you show them to me? This would stop me from asking. "As just one more examples out of dozens more, here's what tzs explained to you in another thread yesterday:" So, I ask for more transparency and your response is another poster that basically said that it's not done this way. Can you tell me why it isn't done this way and why, going forward, it shouldn't? Now, instead of trying to delve into my past and attack me personally (which is usually a red flag for me, but I will ignore it), tell me: 1) What are the 700 regulations and why should I not be able to see them? My business and my life runs through the Internet and I pretty much use it every day. I should have some say in rules that will now be imposed on me. 2) Even if we get to see proposals before regulations and laws are in place, it's still not a vote. In the very beginning, we will probably see no change with the new regulations. It's 5 or 10 years down the line that's still unknown. By this time, people will not associate the higher bills and other effects with this new regulation and politicians will push the blame on something else. I'm actually shocked that intelligent people have no problem just giving their rights away in the blink of an eye.