3 ms·

It's my job to draw the line. Yeah well umm... Fair enough, you got me dead to rights on that one. >You tried to dig up dirt on someone from their history. No

It's my job to draw the line. Yeah well umm... Fair enough, you got me dead to rights on that one. >You tried to dig up dirt on someone from their history. Not that it was dirt, I was looking to see if the poster ever had anything to say about any other topic. It wasn't dirt, it was a fact. It was the poster's own words. Words to the effect that they are employed in aerospace, which was disclosed elsewhere ITT, and was directly responsive to the parent, and isn't worth concealing in any case. >but the intent to use it personally makes it so. Now you're being unfair to me. It's not personal. Authentication and trust are hard in a plain ASCII message board, even harder in Unicode; it's just a condition of discussion boards. Think of it as diligence. >Indeed, I spend my days combating Gratzi, and bless you for it. (in the non-theistic sense, or by a deity of your choosing). >I don't believe anyone meant harm or even did anything very harmful... No, and you're right. I am grateful to have smart people to argue with, and grateful that this place isn't a wasteland. >There has to be a countervailing role, and for the time being that's me. Thanks for reaching out instead of reaching for the banhammer & enjoy your weekend.

dang 11y ago
> Now you're being unfair to me. In that case, I'm sorry. I wasn't happy with how I worded that bit, and I've deleted it from my comment. I don't agree with you about diligence, though. There's something not right about searching through someone's personal or posting history for ammunition in an argument. It seems to me a foul in the local sport. But I don't yet know how to express this precisely.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  No worries. This is the first time I've interacted with you, and I don't completely agree with everything you've said, but I do think you've been completely fair. I don't mind if you're a bit more pre-emptory than I might have been if it keeps the knives put away in these threads. >There's something not right about searching through someone's history But those are things that the person posted publicly. Why is there anything untoward about browsing a person's public comment history (for relevant posts)? What else is it there for? They can and should delete it if they don't want it to remain. Sometimes a quick check of a comment history is all that's needed to see a pretty consistent bias (or other problems). I'm talking about really obvious stuff. It's a reddit reflex, and not all that useful here compared to there.
  - engi_nerd 11y ago
    I think your comments, in conjunction with enraged_camel's, might have given the impression that you were preparing to gang up on me. I'm a little perplexed. Had this discussion been about the more normal HN fare, it would have been quite different. It's, as another user said, about the miilitary/industrial complex elephant. What would you have me do? You seem to be a decent enough person. Would you have me email you and let us have a discussion there, privately? Even then, you would still have no way of really knowing that anything I told you is true (although I would not lie to you, you have no way to verify, really). I do tend to comment on aerospace matters. Primarily because that's what I do. I am a recreational programmer and do write some code at work...So my interests overlap a bit with what HN finds interesting. But I don't solely restrict myself to them...
    - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
      >I think your comments, in conjunction with enraged_camel's It wasn't coordinated, I can't even recall if I have ever replied to camel's posts before today. >I'm a little perplexed. Had this discussion been about the more normal HN fare, it would have been quite different. If it involves politics, surveillance, defense/aerospace, criminal or civil law, securities trading, feminism/women in tech, encryption, Linus Torvalds, etc, there is a likelihood of a spirited debate. I've probably forgotten a few subjects, but the F-35 is not the only issue that people get [perhaps too] excited about. >Would you have me email you and let us have a discussion there, privately? No thank you, I have no desire to have an argument in private about the F-35. I'm not even sure why I spend any time at all on the subject other than I like tech and flying, and in attempting to be an informed consumer of government. My email is easy to find if you need to for some reason but I really prefer having these discussions in public. >It's, as another user said, about the military/industrial complex elephant. There's more than one elephant. There are plenty who object to the fact that we put any effort into killing people. Various degrees of us who'd just like to kill a lot fewer people. And then those who don't mind killing people, but want it to be done efficiently. And, I think those who are indifferent to the killing of people, as long as they can get rich off of it (no, that's not meant to be a cheap-shot at salary-people who work in defense). >What would you have me do? As I said previously. I think you should disclose your association with the defense/aerospace industry, and you should do that when you join a discussion. I would feel the same if you were employed in most any other industry, and commenting in a similar manner. You don't need to reveal your location or employer or anything like that; and frankly, you need to tolerate or at least expect some skepticism about your motives. >I do tend to comment on aerospace matters. Primarily because that's what I do. Then you must no doubt be familiar with the fact that the F-35 project is controversial both inside and outside the .mil and the defense industry. The internet is lousy with these kinds of discussions; it's the greatest peanut gallery the world has ever known. In some of these discussions are a few people who'd apparently like to have us all believe that the F-35 is going to win all of the battles against any adversary anywhere, any time, at any place, ever; do it all for cheap, and then precision-airdrop hot-buttered toast and letters from mom to the ground troops on its way home. I'm glad that you've attempted to constrain your posts to facts which can be confirmed, but also remember that the facts are suspect where it involves next-get .mil-tech. The .mil may or may not [probably won't] release info that could damage the project, and they won't release full performance specs, either; under the naive notion/excuse that potential adversaries can't get that kind of information.

dang 11y ago

> Now you're being unfair to me. In that case, I'm sorry. I wasn't happy with how I worded that bit, and I've deleted it from my comment. I don't agree with you about diligence, though. There's something not right about searching through someone's personal or posting history for ammunition in an argument. It seems to me a foul in the local sport. But I don't yet know how to express this precisely.

fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
No worries. This is the first time I've interacted with you, and I don't completely agree with everything you've said, but I do think you've been completely fair. I don't mind if you're a bit more pre-emptory than I might have been if it keeps the knives put away in these threads. >There's something not right about searching through someone's history But those are things that the person posted publicly. Why is there anything untoward about browsing a person's public comment history (for relevant posts)? What else is it there for? They can and should delete it if they don't want it to remain. Sometimes a quick check of a comment history is all that's needed to see a pretty consistent bias (or other problems). I'm talking about really obvious stuff. It's a reddit reflex, and not all that useful here compared to there.
- engi_nerd 11y ago
  I think your comments, in conjunction with enraged_camel's, might have given the impression that you were preparing to gang up on me. I'm a little perplexed. Had this discussion been about the more normal HN fare, it would have been quite different. It's, as another user said, about the miilitary/industrial complex elephant. What would you have me do? You seem to be a decent enough person. Would you have me email you and let us have a discussion there, privately? Even then, you would still have no way of really knowing that anything I told you is true (although I would not lie to you, you have no way to verify, really). I do tend to comment on aerospace matters. Primarily because that's what I do. I am a recreational programmer and do write some code at work...So my interests overlap a bit with what HN finds interesting. But I don't solely restrict myself to them...
  - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    >I think your comments, in conjunction with enraged_camel's It wasn't coordinated, I can't even recall if I have ever replied to camel's posts before today. >I'm a little perplexed. Had this discussion been about the more normal HN fare, it would have been quite different. If it involves politics, surveillance, defense/aerospace, criminal or civil law, securities trading, feminism/women in tech, encryption, Linus Torvalds, etc, there is a likelihood of a spirited debate. I've probably forgotten a few subjects, but the F-35 is not the only issue that people get [perhaps too] excited about. >Would you have me email you and let us have a discussion there, privately? No thank you, I have no desire to have an argument in private about the F-35. I'm not even sure why I spend any time at all on the subject other than I like tech and flying, and in attempting to be an informed consumer of government. My email is easy to find if you need to for some reason but I really prefer having these discussions in public. >It's, as another user said, about the military/industrial complex elephant. There's more than one elephant. There are plenty who object to the fact that we put any effort into killing people. Various degrees of us who'd just like to kill a lot fewer people. And then those who don't mind killing people, but want it to be done efficiently. And, I think those who are indifferent to the killing of people, as long as they can get rich off of it (no, that's not meant to be a cheap-shot at salary-people who work in defense). >What would you have me do? As I said previously. I think you should disclose your association with the defense/aerospace industry, and you should do that when you join a discussion. I would feel the same if you were employed in most any other industry, and commenting in a similar manner. You don't need to reveal your location or employer or anything like that; and frankly, you need to tolerate or at least expect some skepticism about your motives. >I do tend to comment on aerospace matters. Primarily because that's what I do. Then you must no doubt be familiar with the fact that the F-35 project is controversial both inside and outside the .mil and the defense industry. The internet is lousy with these kinds of discussions; it's the greatest peanut gallery the world has ever known. In some of these discussions are a few people who'd apparently like to have us all believe that the F-35 is going to win all of the battles against any adversary anywhere, any time, at any place, ever; do it all for cheap, and then precision-airdrop hot-buttered toast and letters from mom to the ground troops on its way home. I'm glad that you've attempted to constrain your posts to facts which can be confirmed, but also remember that the facts are suspect where it involves next-get .mil-tech. The .mil may or may not [probably won't] release info that could damage the project, and they won't release full performance specs, either; under the naive notion/excuse that potential adversaries can't get that kind of information.