"Charitable reading" is not synonymous with "ignore abuse and snark".
Edit: oldmanjay - I can't reply yet, so editing here:
mreiland is basically arguing that abuse should be let through because of 'charitable reading'. I'm commenting against that concept, not chiding mreiland for being abusive.
However, mreiland is definitely being snarky - if you wanted to read this comment as chiding the behaviour in this thread, don't chop off the last two words.
Just so you know, if you want to reply to a comment before the reply link shows up, clicking on the description of post time (e.g. '1 hour ago') will enable the reply feature. It's not very intuitive, but it is a reliable workaround.
It seems like you would have to be incredibly uncharitable indeed to feel abused by anything in this discussion. Although I admit I am not particularly sensitive.
If you have to tell me what my position/argument/opinion is, chances are you're involved in a strawman.
In particular, I responded to someone complaining about people who dismiss others easily. I responded by stating I dismiss people quickly and will continue to do so and I explained why.
A few back and forths later and here you are telling me I'm arguing that HN should "ignore abuse and snark".
For those who are maybe a bit more middle of the road in these types of conversations. THIS is why I'm so quick to dismiss. I could respond back with "nuhuh, that isn't what I said" and let this stupid conversation devolve into a time wasting exercise in futility.
Or I could recognize that vacri didn't like something I said or the way I said it and came into the interaction with a negativity towards me such that he chose to do exactly what this thread initially recommended people do, which is to interpret things charitably.
And it is for this reason that I'm going to simply dismiss vacri as too biased and emotionally clouded to spend time on.
here is a concrete example of how and why I dismiss people. In case it wasn't clear to anyone.
Edit: oldmanjay - I can't reply yet, so editing here:
mreiland is basically arguing that abuse should be let through because of 'charitable reading'. I'm commenting against that concept, not chiding mreiland for being abusive.
However, mreiland is definitely being snarky - if you wanted to read this comment as chiding the behaviour in this thread, don't chop off the last two words.