3 ms·

I voted your post down because you were rude and condescending. Here's an another (more respectful) way in which you could have written your post: "I see that

I voted your post down because you were rude and condescending. Here's an another (more respectful) way in which you could have written your post: "I see that this story has a lot of upvotes, but it's not a story that I found particularly interesting. Could someone give me their perspective on why they liked this article?" You also did what is often done to a large number of articles posted to HN: You asked a variant of "why is this hacker news?!," the answer to which is always the same: "because X number of people found that it gratified their intellectual curiosity and voted it up." It gets old after a while, but I personally wouldn't object to someone repeatedly asking the question as long as they were respectful and truly interested in the response rather than asking it as a way to complain.

RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago
Hmm. If you found that rude and condescending - and I don't doubt your word - then I'm rather pleased I didn't write what I first thought, and instead toned it down to what I thought was comparatively constructive. Obviously not by enough. I'll take your comments on board - thank you for taking the time to explain.
- 10ren 17y ago
  I agree with sounddust (I can't just upvote, because my upvotes aren't registering). Although I personally wasn't offended by your attitude (I've gotten used to people having that attitude on HN), your comment was objectively prejudicial: "even the vaguest bit interesting". Not neutral or impartial, which are ideals of the intellectual gratification you seek here... My personal response is to reply factually, simply ignoring the tone in a comment, as the guidelines imply (with the "2+2=4" example) - and not to downvote unless it's egregious. But maybe it's fortunate in the bigger scheme of things that you were downvoted - because of this feedback you got. Each little change improves the site as a whole. BTW: I was thinking that net 2 downvotes, from 1 to -1 (and now 3 downvotes, to -2) is not indicative of the opinion of the community as a whole ... but given that many people vote to adjust a comment score to where they think it should be, maybe it is representative.
  - RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago
    I've up-voted sounddust for you. I come from a background where the ideas of neutral and impartial are independent of those of intellectual gratification. In mathematics one has strong opinions and can state them clearly, and in reply, people can tell you you're wrong without it being mistaken for a personal attack. I guess I just let that leak over into here - now being in business I usually keep it under wraps. That's what I meant elsewhere when I said I would be less open. In future I won't be so blunt in my opinions, as am in math, and wrap them more, as I do in business. We've done this to death I think - I really appreciate the feedback. Thanks.
    - 10ren 17y ago
      Thanks! I don't want to prolong the agony - but I'm curious about about "neutral and impartial" vs. "intellectual gratification." If one's opinions and emotions distort the facts, it is difficult to have intellectual gratification, because one cannot see clearly. To me, intellectual gratification requires absolute honesty, as in science (as Feynman says). In other words, the problem isn't that someone is offended, but that one's own vision is distorted. Perhaps in mathematics this isn't so important because the mathematics itself is already impartial. :-)

RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago

Hmm. If you found that rude and condescending - and I don't doubt your word - then I'm rather pleased I didn't write what I first thought, and instead toned it down to what I thought was comparatively constructive. Obviously not by enough. I'll take your comments on board - thank you for taking the time to explain.

10ren 17y ago
I agree with sounddust (I can't just upvote, because my upvotes aren't registering). Although I personally wasn't offended by your attitude (I've gotten used to people having that attitude on HN), your comment was objectively prejudicial: "even the vaguest bit interesting". Not neutral or impartial, which are ideals of the intellectual gratification you seek here... My personal response is to reply factually, simply ignoring the tone in a comment, as the guidelines imply (with the "2+2=4" example) - and not to downvote unless it's egregious. But maybe it's fortunate in the bigger scheme of things that you were downvoted - because of this feedback you got. Each little change improves the site as a whole. BTW: I was thinking that net 2 downvotes, from 1 to -1 (and now 3 downvotes, to -2) is not indicative of the opinion of the community as a whole ... but given that many people vote to adjust a comment score to where they think it should be, maybe it is representative.
- RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago
  I've up-voted sounddust for you. I come from a background where the ideas of neutral and impartial are independent of those of intellectual gratification. In mathematics one has strong opinions and can state them clearly, and in reply, people can tell you you're wrong without it being mistaken for a personal attack. I guess I just let that leak over into here - now being in business I usually keep it under wraps. That's what I meant elsewhere when I said I would be less open. In future I won't be so blunt in my opinions, as am in math, and wrap them more, as I do in business. We've done this to death I think - I really appreciate the feedback. Thanks.
  - 10ren 17y ago
    Thanks! I don't want to prolong the agony - but I'm curious about about "neutral and impartial" vs. "intellectual gratification." If one's opinions and emotions distort the facts, it is difficult to have intellectual gratification, because one cannot see clearly. To me, intellectual gratification requires absolute honesty, as in science (as Feynman says). In other words, the problem isn't that someone is offended, but that one's own vision is distorted. Perhaps in mathematics this isn't so important because the mathematics itself is already impartial. :-)