You can't attack others like this on HN, regardless of how provocative another comment was or you feel it was. We ban accounts that do so, for what should be obvious reasons.
I'm not going to ban you right now because everyone gets activated sometimes and it doesn't look like you've been breaking the site guidelines recently (at least not from a quick skim I just did). But please don't do this again! and please avoid flamewars generally—we've had to ask you that at least once before (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33924578).
>You can't attack others like this on HN, regardless of how provocative another comment was or you feel it was. We ban accounts that do so, for what should be obvious reasons.
I know. Hence the addendum to my comment. As I said there: "I screwed up. I will try to do better in the future."
I just noticed https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35563286 - yikes, that's really not ok. But I'm going to assume that your intention not to do that kind of thing backpropagates to cover earlier cases as well.
>I just noticed https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35563286 - yikes, that's really not ok. But I'm going to assume that your intention not to do that kind of thing backpropagates to cover earlier cases as well.
I noted your attention to that comment earlier today, but am only responding here and now. And yes, your assumption is correct. Thank you for (in this case, and in general here on HN) for embodying the ideals in the the HN guidelines.
I can't speak for anyone else, but your example makes me more inclined to calmer, more reasoned and good faith posting.
In fact, when I joined HN 2.5 years ago or so, I left behind a different news aggregator (which shall remain nameless) because I realized (not without provocation, but as you correctly point out, that's not a good reason to be a jerk) I was acting just as poorly as those I would castigate there. And I didn't like what sort of person that made me.
HN, its users (for the most part) and the consistently enforced guidelines led me to be more measured, thoughtful and mindful of the impact of my interactions with others.
As we've seen, I'm not perfect, but I'm much more of the kind of poster that I want to be thanks to that.
Just to confirm my understanding WRT the comment referenced, it was the last three words that were the bulk of the problem, yes?
Thank you! that's satisfying to read and I appreciate your taking the time.
> Just to confirm my understanding WRT the comment referenced, it was the last three words that were the bulk of the problem, yes?
Those were the worst bit but if you read the comment closely there's actually only one substantive sentence in it ("All Things Considered is not Fresh Air.") The other three sentences are all flamewar tropes, and the post wuld have been much better with those removed. The one substantive sentence would probably have been fine on its own, or you could optionally have added a bit more information to explain your point more fully.
Thanks for the clarification. It seems clear (I wish I'd been less triggered by the comments to which I'd replied or I'd have come to that conclusion when it mattered) that the "only winning move [was] not to play"[0] in that case.
