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

All I see here is you avoiding backing up anything you are saying, even after you edited your comments.

You basically said 'what if it saves money' when discussing multiple state wide crises. Saying 'what if' isn't an argument in the first place, now you're avoiding confronting what you said completely.



Again, these are your own rambling paraphrases, of course I don't need to 'back up' another user's comments.


These were your own comments, there is nothing rambling here. It is A to B to C. If you could confront the topic instead of avoiding it with names and insults I think you would have already.


No, they are your comments, period. If you had included even a single exact quote from me, that would be different, going by HN norms.

Trying to argue around this fact is pretty odd and it's unclear what the intention is.

You are also free to contact any HN user you trust and confirm whether I'm making this up or not?


You are also free to contact any HN user you trust and confirm whether I'm making this up or not?

I don't understand your question at all. Making what up? Why are all your comments deflection? Why not quote yourself and explain what you were trying to say?


Again, if you are unsure about or believe another user is somehow being duplicitous about HN norms, rules, mod decisions, etc., then double check, such as by emailing dang.


Why won't you deal with what you originally said? All of your comments are trying to avoid your original comment.


It seems your already starting to forget prior comments in this chain?

I explicitly stated 3 days ago:

> Well this seems a bit too snarky and not in good faith so I'm not going to substantially respond any further.

See this link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37516711

Frankly, although I didn't want to bring it up previously lest it be too embarrassing, perhaps logging off and seeking some help would be the better choice, if you are genuinely forgetting how to check past HN comments.

EDIT: After thinking it over, I'm going to disengage here since I rather not risk the chance of inadvertently nudging someone further into a negative spiral.


I'm not going to substantially respond any further.

You didn't substantially respond at all.

No one is victimizing you by asking you to focus on what you originally. You originally said that maybe statewide energy crisis that directly result in deaths are fine because it might make sense financially without even having any numbers or actual information of any kind.

All you did after was try to be insulting and act like you are being victimized while avoiding anything about what you originally said.

Why not just deal with the current topic? Why not explain what you said? It's bizarre that you would rather thrash around and try to blame people for replying when you could just deal with the thread directly.




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

Search: