6 ms·

I'm critical, not negative. Maybe they're considered to be the same thing in California but, where I am, the difference is still recognized.

dang 11y ago
That's a red herring. There are two problems with your harangues. First, there's nothing substantive in them—no factual basis or evidence or even experience. You're simply making things up. Second, they're utterly predictable and you recycle them through every tangentially related thread. That makes them noise, not signal. Once or twice would just be normal bullshit of the kind we all post from time to time. That's part of conversation. But inundating HN with some weird simulacrum of a political campaign is an abuse of this site. It's beginning to dawn on me that it is a form of trolling. It is clearly not what HN threads are for, and it needs to stop.
- Diamons 11y ago
  The man stated his opinion. Stop getting your panties in a bunch and move on.
- waterlesscloud 11y ago
  I'm disappointed in your response. It's well over the line of what feels appropriate to me.
  - a8da6b0c91d 11y ago
    I don't think anyone would even care a bit if he learned the art of brevity but it's an endless stream of meandering 500 word screeds that visually take up a lot of space.
    - Diamons 11y ago
      Because words on a computer screen is such a precious resource.
      - raldi 11y ago
        That's the same argument used by spam apologists.
        Diamons 11y ago
        You've confused the meaning of spam with opinions I don't agree with.
        raldi 11y ago
        Readers' attention is a precious resource. The repurposing of the term "signal to noise ratio" to apply to mailing lists and forums is a reflection of that.
        Diamons 11y ago
        Once again, read my parent post. I found his post a good read so that's one bit of anecdotal evidence right there already. Something tells me you don't fully understand 'signal to noise ratio' either.
- throwawaymaroon 11y ago
  This is interesting to watch unfold. Dang's trying to build a case history against michaelochurch. That'll be an amusing bit of drama. If you ask me, dang, you picked a poor fight this time; too many people are chiming in in defense of Michael. When you try to ban him (what, do you think he's going to respect this gratuitous use of authority?) there's going to be a fuss, and while all the important figures will back you almost by default, the uproar will be fed by instances like this one. Though I can see why you thought this was a good situation to make an example of him. I don't get Church's obsession with Spiegel; retire that particular dead horse maybe, Michael? ;)
- michaelochurch 11y ago
  You seem to have confused "I dislike this" with "nothing substantive".
- monkeynokey 11y ago
  I would rather see you banned from HN than michaelochurch. Your meddlesome moderation is noise. michaelochurch's predictable rants are strong signal of a well known character around these parts. His unique viewpoint brings a familiar controversial voice to this board. He is part of this community. You would probably downvote or ban RMS for voicing his predictable rants on every tangential topic on these boards, if he wasn't already part of the "hacker" establishment that is currently accepted around here. But since you so clearly know what HN threads are not for... why don't you enlighten us as to what they are for? Adding luster to the YC brand name and ensuring it is not tarnished? Helping YC startups gain a competitive edge with under the radar propaganda? Worshipping Sam Altman and the celebrity cast of VC has-beens and never-weres, in order to perpetuate their business of brainwashing overachieving high school kids into taking risky gambles for them, so they may make an attempt to leave their decrepit mark on society?

dang 11y ago

That's a red herring. There are two problems with your harangues. First, there's nothing substantive in them—no factual basis or evidence or even experience. You're simply making things up. Second, they're utterly predictable and you recycle them through every tangentially related thread. That makes them noise, not signal. Once or twice would just be normal bullshit of the kind we all post from time to time. That's part of conversation. But inundating HN with some weird simulacrum of a political campaign is an abuse of this site. It's beginning to dawn on me that it is a form of trolling. It is clearly not what HN threads are for, and it needs to stop.

Diamons 11y ago
The man stated his opinion. Stop getting your panties in a bunch and move on.
waterlesscloud 11y ago
I'm disappointed in your response. It's well over the line of what feels appropriate to me.
- a8da6b0c91d 11y ago
  I don't think anyone would even care a bit if he learned the art of brevity but it's an endless stream of meandering 500 word screeds that visually take up a lot of space.
  - Diamons 11y ago
    Because words on a computer screen is such a precious resource.
    - raldi 11y ago
      That's the same argument used by spam apologists.
      - Diamons 11y ago
        You've confused the meaning of spam with opinions I don't agree with.
        raldi 11y ago
        Readers' attention is a precious resource. The repurposing of the term "signal to noise ratio" to apply to mailing lists and forums is a reflection of that.
        Diamons 11y ago
        Once again, read my parent post. I found his post a good read so that's one bit of anecdotal evidence right there already. Something tells me you don't fully understand 'signal to noise ratio' either.
throwawaymaroon 11y ago
This is interesting to watch unfold. Dang's trying to build a case history against michaelochurch. That'll be an amusing bit of drama. If you ask me, dang, you picked a poor fight this time; too many people are chiming in in defense of Michael. When you try to ban him (what, do you think he's going to respect this gratuitous use of authority?) there's going to be a fuss, and while all the important figures will back you almost by default, the uproar will be fed by instances like this one. Though I can see why you thought this was a good situation to make an example of him. I don't get Church's obsession with Spiegel; retire that particular dead horse maybe, Michael? ;)
michaelochurch 11y ago
You seem to have confused "I dislike this" with "nothing substantive".
monkeynokey 11y ago
I would rather see you banned from HN than michaelochurch. Your meddlesome moderation is noise. michaelochurch's predictable rants are strong signal of a well known character around these parts. His unique viewpoint brings a familiar controversial voice to this board. He is part of this community. You would probably downvote or ban RMS for voicing his predictable rants on every tangential topic on these boards, if he wasn't already part of the "hacker" establishment that is currently accepted around here. But since you so clearly know what HN threads are not for... why don't you enlighten us as to what they are for? Adding luster to the YC brand name and ensuring it is not tarnished? Helping YC startups gain a competitive edge with under the radar propaganda? Worshipping Sam Altman and the celebrity cast of VC has-beens and never-weres, in order to perpetuate their business of brainwashing overachieving high school kids into taking risky gambles for them, so they may make an attempt to leave their decrepit mark on society?