

Ask HN: Unable to comment on one of my posts - credo

&#60;Edit/Repost&#62; 
I had originally titled the question as "Ask HN: Bug or stupid HN policy?"<p>Previously, I had submitted http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1542329. However, the "discuss" link for that post didn't show me a comment-box and that prevented me from commenting on my own posting. I had incorrectly assumed the missing comment-box was either due to an HN bug or HN policy.<p>It turns out (thanks to RiderOfGiraffes) that the post (a New York Times article on "Israel Puts Off Crisis Over Conversion Law") had been killed (presumably because it was flagged as off-topic). That explains why the post had no comment-box.<p>If a post is killed, I wish there was an easier way for the poster to know about it :)
======
RiderOfGiraffes
Some investigation shows the item has been killed - I suspect that enough
people thought it wasn't sufficiently on topic and flagged it.

~~~
credo
It is odd that
[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/24/world/middleeast/24israel....](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/24/world/middleeast/24israel.html)
would be killed, but thanks for looking into it.

~~~
RiderOfGiraffes
Why is it odd? It's not about technology, it's not about entrepreneurs, it's
not about startups, it's not about math, it's not about physics, or user
interfaces, or philosophy, or any of the other topics I've seen discussed at
length here.

I also think it's thoroughly misplaced.

~~~
credo
The current #2 post on HN is
<http://www.economist.com/node/16636027?story_id=16636027> (Too many laws too
many prisoners)

Is that Economist post about any of the things you listed ?

If you think that the Economist post was relevant,it is easy to argue that the
New York Times post which opened with a paragraph that mentioned the
"byzantine complexity of Israeli politics" and "A growing crisis between
American Jews and the Israeli government over a proposed law " is also
relevant.

PS: Using the "not about startups, not about .." argument for the NYT post
about Israel , but not for the hugely popular Economist post about America
illustrates your own bias, but it is interesting to see that a large number of
people share that bias

~~~
RiderOfGiraffes
I've only just really realised the accusation you make in your PS. Interesting
that you think my distinction is because one is from the NYT and the other
from the Economist, and it would be interesting to see you flesh out that
accusation further and be a bit more specific.

It would be especially interesting given that I'm not American (North or
South) and I don't live in the Americas.

FWIW I am _very_ interested in the issues raised in the NYT and I have been
following the process elsewhere. I just don't think it's of interest to
hackers as opposed to anyone else. I do believe the discussion of laws and
prisoners has a hacker flavor, because there is a chance of hacking justice.
There is no chance (that I can see) of hacking the politics of the Middle
East.

And further, FWIW, I didn't flag your submission, I'm not a moderator, and I
have no special standing on this forum. I just used common sense and
observation to answer your question. I find it disappointing that you accuse
me of bias in this way.

~~~
credo
Since you want to keep flogging a dead horse topic, I'll respond one last
time.

I think it is absurd for you to say that the Economist article was "biased in
interest towards hackers because people can argue about how to change the
laws, or the meting out of punishments - hacking justice" and then turn around
and say that the NYT article about Israeli law is of "not specifically biased
towards hackers"

As for your claim that there is no chance of "hacking the politics of the
Middle East", the NY article was focused on one specific law and it appears
that "hacking" (to use the term you'd like for the Economist article) has
already been effective on that specific law.

To me, you're applying different standards to the two articles about the two
laws and that indicates a bias for one topic over the other. That is fine. It
appears that you reject the notion of having any bias and that is also fine by
me.

As for where you live or what passport you have, I really don't care about
that either. So quit your defensive posturing and don't make an issue over
your nationality.

~~~
RiderOfGiraffes
Perhaps I've simply mis-understood you - I'd be pleased to discover that's the
case. However, when you said:

    
    
      > Using the "not about startups, not about .." argument
      > for the NYT post about Israel, but not for the hugely
      > popular Economist post about America illustrates your
      > own bias
    

... it sounds a lot like you think I'm biased _because_ one article is about
Israel and the other is about America. That reading makes it sound like you
think I'm biased against Israel and in favor of America, and so it is you that
has brought up the question of nationalities and allegiances. That accusation
is unjust - hence my reply.

If this was not your intention then I'm pleased, although that does confuse me
as to what bias you thought you saw.

As to the suitability of either article for HN - both should be of interest to
any intelligent person who cares about the real world, and both are marginal
as to being of relevance to "Hacker News." I personally have more chance of
thinking about and understanding the justice system than I have of
understanding the specifics of a particular religion, even though I am
interested in and following that issue as best I can. My reading of each
article leaves me thinking that the question of the law and prisoners is more
open to hacking than the interaction between a specific religion and the
politics of the state that is so tightly tied to them.

You may think that's absurd, and I respect that opinion while, obviously,
disagreeing with it.

And I will say no more on the subject.

