Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

What. The. Hell? That is absolutely civil, and it is substantive and it's a fact we should all aspire to!

This is an unmitigated bit of bastardry, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself.



Your veiled sarcasm wasn't fooling anyone, and arguing with the moderators (who honestly have enough to do) is tiresome. Please be sincere, if you're going to comment at all.


How would you know that? There's nothing cynical about that! As an Australian we hold the U.S. up as a model of civility. You've got no idea how uncivil our parliament is. Let me give you an example of one of our former Prime Ministers in parliament time:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lEsN4-XLE2k

Another Prime Minister said an opposition MP should "beaten with a blow torch".

So don't tell me when I'm being sincere or not. I have watched Bush, Obama, Clinton, old clips of Reagan and Carter and they might have had unsavoury policies, but they made sure they gave dignity to the Presidency. And sure, they often tussled and sometimes they forgot themselves, or skirted the edges of what is considered acceptable for that role, but they largely remained civil and showed some level of courtesy and respect for the populace and their opponents.

So I fully stand behind my comment. Whether you want to impune my motives or my sincerity, oh you who I've never met or spoken to or interacted with in any other way, well you feel free to do so but I know what I said was right, and something I think we should all try to aspire to.


I respect your opinion. However, expressing yourself in such a backhanded way tends to raise the emotional temperature, especially online. It's better to make your points directly and not to work in a political needle through the back door as it were.


Backhanded? Unless you actually think that the presidency isn't something that should be used as a model for discussions and debates, there's nothing backhanded about it at all.

Perhaps you could get off your high horse and stop saying my motives are less than pure? Right now I feel you are lecturing me like an errant schoolboy. You, after all, are the one telling me I have "veiled" sarcasm. I'm telling you I don't and I thought my opinion - even if you disagree with it - was something constructive I could bring to this thread.

So, perhaps try to ascribe less to my motives given I have no idea who you are and I have never interacted with you before, not to mention my comment history shows I tend to be a pretty serious minded poster. It's hardly respectful to impune my motives when you have no real evidence to the contrary to inform your suspicions.

In fact, the only temperature that's being raised right now is mine, given you appear to be attacking my character. And that's a tad hypocritical.

dang, on the other hand, has no such excuse.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: