3 ms·

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

by 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. :-)

by 10ren 17y ago

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. :-)