Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

To be fair, your initial response was not particularly conducive to continuing the conversation. Why would they choose to respond to someone who is apparently antagonistic?



Which initial response?

My first comment in this thread was responding to a baseless comment about someone's own memory, so I didn't feel the need to put a lot of effort providing sources.

My first reply to billfor was a question asking for clarification on his comment.

I don't see in what way I'm being antagonistic. As to why would they choose to respond, I don't know, but they did choose to, so I don't see why asking for clarification is such a bad thing.


Apologies for not looking far enough up the thread. I am referring to this comment:

Where have you copy-pasted this list from and what is it's relevance?

Perhaps it wasn't your intent, but this can easily be read as "you're just copy/pasting stuff that doesn't have anything to do with the conversation". With contentious topics, extra care needs to be taken to ensure constructive conversation.


It's very clear that it is copy-pasted from somewhere, just from the formatting of the text, so I was honestly wondering where it was from. As it is it's just an unsourced block of text without any commentary about what they meant to show by it or even if it is accurate.

>this can easily be read as "you're just copy/pasting stuff that doesn't have anything to do with the conversation".

Good, because that is what I meant. Until they can show the source of that information and can explain why they posted it I have no way of knowing if it has anything to do with the conversation.

>With contentious topics, extra care needs to be taken to ensure constructive conversation.

I do not consider just copying blocks of text at someone without any attempt at elaboration a constructive conversation. I asked a valid clarifying question and I feel no need to beat around the bush. Nothing in my comment was unnecessary or aggressive. Read it literally, as that is the way it was written.


If you no longer think the person you're engaging with is interested in constructive discussion, it does absolutely no good to make it worse by raising the level of antagonism. If you're interested in rehabilitating it, you need to make it abundantly clear that that's what you're doing. Otherwise, just leave it be.

Given the nature of internet forums with text being the only medium, you do need to take extra care to ensure the best possible reading of your comments. I wasn't the only one to read your comment in a negative way (as another commenter posted as well), and your comment didn't elicit the response from 'billfor that you were looking for. The bar needs to be higher. Although it happens much too often, HN isn't intended for battle or point-scoring debate: it's intended for substantive, constructive discussion.

Similarly, at this point I don't think I've done an adequate job in presenting what I've intended, so I'll leave it at that.


>it does absolutely no good to make it worse by raising the level of antagonism.

I do not believe I did so. Again: I asked an honest question to which I honestly want to know the answer.


Apparently, the only link that comes up in a search is:

http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=64995 "Media outrage at White House briefing is more 'Fake News' - Look ..."


Awesome! Thank you, I appreciate it. Looks like that's just a rehost of a Brietbart article.

Seems like some of the events disagree with the collation article:

>On Thursday, Fox News’ Ed Henry tweeted that MSNBC hosts Ed Schultz and Lawrence O’Donnell, as well as Ezra Klein of the Washington Post and Fox News’ Juan Williams, had been invited for a private off-the-record chat with President Obama.

So not exactly the "lefty" conspiracy painted in the root article.


He may have inferred from your tone a common algorithm:

1. Ask to clarify meaning when the meaning requires only superficial analysis. 2. Ask for sources. 3. Dispute illegitimate sources, while clarifying which sources are acceptable, without ability to see bias in "legitimate" sources. 4. Await response, assuming it will be hostile. 5. Respond with other hostile algorithm.


>Ask to clarify meaning when the meaning requires only superficial analysis.

A block of text of potentially real, potentially fabricated dates and events without any clarifying text doesn't really fit this description.

I mean, if we want to throw arguments into algorithms I can just as easily point to:

1. Throw out dubious claims and/or unrelated/incorrect facts 2. Claim dishonesty when claims are not accepted on face value 3. Resist any attempts at clarification of argument 4. Claim opponent is disingenuous and declare victory.


So... you did understand what he said, and are assuming he's hostile? This seems to contradict that you were asking honest feedback.


What? No, I don't understand what he said. It was a list of dates and events that I don't know are true or accurate, without any context of why he commented them. I was referring to you when I said

>Claim dishonesty when claims are not accepted on face value


I made no claim that I wish you accepted at face value. So as far as i understand, you must be referring to bills claim. Otherwise, to which claim are you referring?

Assuming it is bills claim to ehich you refer, if you don't understand the context, how can it be a claim?




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

Search: