4 ms·

Care to provide some links to what you think the case IS about? I'm addressing points raised in the submitted article and the article I provided a link to. How

Care to provide some links to what you think the case IS about? I'm addressing points raised in the submitted article and the article I provided a link to. How am I being misleading?

dasil003 12y ago
Cherry-picking.
- malvosenior 12y ago
  Please supply the missing information then. I want to be as accurate as possible! I'm not cherry picking, just pointing to actual points being raised in these articles.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    It's ok to be uninformed about a random legal case. You don't have a duty to be informed about Pao. What's not OK is to casually and incorrectly declare yourself informed and then to provide an opinionated summary based on that false credential, which is what you've managed to do here.
    - malvosenior 12y ago
      Aside from Anechoic who gave a very appreciated correction to my comment, not a single person has provided any additional information. You keep saying I'm uninformed but you've not provided any information to this discussion. Please do! I want to know more.
      - x0x0 12y ago
        Possibly the internet at large, or hn, doesn't consider it our jobs to babysit you. Type something like ellen pao lawsuit into google and educate yourself.
        malvosenior 12y ago
        I provided data to support my case. Some people are attacking me but not providing a reason. Saying "I'm right, but I refuse to prove it!" doesn't get you much.
        x0x0 12y ago
        You provided cherry-picked facts, and couldn't even manage get the few you included right. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ellen+pao+lawsuit http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ellen+pao+lawsuit
        malvosenior 12y ago
        I'm disengaging with you because you're obviously here to troll. If you want to provide any additional information do it somewhere in this thread.
        tptacek 12y ago
        That commenter is being a bit aggressive, but they don't appear to be trolling; their critique is valid. One of the oldest message board rhetorical tricks in the book is to use a grossly incomplete summary as an ambit claim, and then to retcon facts from the inevitable rebuttals into that argument. It shouldn't surprise you that people don't want to help you do that.
        malvosenior 12y ago
        Their critique is: you're wrong but I won't tell you why. I don't see how that's helpful. I don't know what you're suggesting we do either. You don't want to supply facts because they'll be "retcon"-ed? That's a new one.
        tptacek 12y ago
        If it weren't obvious to anyone who'd been following the case how superficial your summary was, that would be a valid point.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

Care to provide some links to what you think the case IS about? I'm addressing points raised in the submitted article and the article I provided a link to. How am I being misleading?

dasil003 12y ago

Cherry-picking.

malvosenior 12y ago
Please supply the missing information then. I want to be as accurate as possible! I'm not cherry picking, just pointing to actual points being raised in these articles.
- tptacek 12y ago
  It's ok to be uninformed about a random legal case. You don't have a duty to be informed about Pao. What's not OK is to casually and incorrectly declare yourself informed and then to provide an opinionated summary based on that false credential, which is what you've managed to do here.
  - malvosenior 12y ago
    Aside from Anechoic who gave a very appreciated correction to my comment, not a single person has provided any additional information. You keep saying I'm uninformed but you've not provided any information to this discussion. Please do! I want to know more.
    - x0x0 12y ago
      Possibly the internet at large, or hn, doesn't consider it our jobs to babysit you. Type something like ellen pao lawsuit into google and educate yourself.
      - malvosenior 12y ago
        I provided data to support my case. Some people are attacking me but not providing a reason. Saying "I'm right, but I refuse to prove it!" doesn't get you much.
        x0x0 12y ago
        You provided cherry-picked facts, and couldn't even manage get the few you included right. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ellen+pao+lawsuit http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ellen+pao+lawsuit
        malvosenior 12y ago
        I'm disengaging with you because you're obviously here to troll. If you want to provide any additional information do it somewhere in this thread.
        tptacek 12y ago
        That commenter is being a bit aggressive, but they don't appear to be trolling; their critique is valid. One of the oldest message board rhetorical tricks in the book is to use a grossly incomplete summary as an ambit claim, and then to retcon facts from the inevitable rebuttals into that argument. It shouldn't surprise you that people don't want to help you do that.
        malvosenior 12y ago
        Their critique is: you're wrong but I won't tell you why. I don't see how that's helpful. I don't know what you're suggesting we do either. You don't want to supply facts because they'll be "retcon"-ed? That's a new one.
        tptacek 12y ago
        If it weren't obvious to anyone who'd been following the case how superficial your summary was, that would be a valid point.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]