Hacker News Reader

Comment by sophacles | Hacker News Reader

This is the sentence in which I ask a question taking the incindiary post at face value. This sentence is a common-sense answer to my question, starting with "it seems that". This is the sentence in which I suggest that maybe conventional wisdom is correct. This sentence states a fact to support my suggestion.

This sentence attacks the blog for fallacious reasoning. This one points out the [strawman|false dilemma| other]. This sentence suggests that if the central argument is based on a fallacious point, the whole thing could be wrong. This is the sentence where I backpedal a bit and declare fallacious reasoning is not strictly indicative of an incorrect conclusion.

Edit: This is the edit where I poke fun at mistakes in my hastily typed response above.

View on HN

This is the sentence in which I invoke my [Yale|Harvard|Princeton|Caltech|MIT] diploma and lay into you with a subtle ad hominem. This is the sentence in which I narrow the problem to 1% of its original scope, eliminating the most useful and difficult 99%. This is the sentence in which I then solve that 1%, invoking advanced statistical techniques as I do so. This is the sentence in which I act far more humble than my accomplishment merited.

Here is the comment where I come to talk about how this community isn't what it was once. This sentence is where I would compare this community to another popular online community which I frequent but refer to in a demeaning fashion on other sites.

This is the comment where I point out that, based on the number of votes the submission has received, it seems that you're alone in considering this submission to an example of the decadence of Hacker News; and note that, in any case, the correct response is to flag the submission, not to complain about it in the comments.

This is the sentence in which I try to steer the thread back to he original topic. This sentence is my backup in which I blather unrelated, anecdotal stuff from my workplace, because it just popped into my head and I have the slight feel that my first sentence won't meet his purpose.

This is a comment nobody actually really sees, because they skipped down the page when they saw the conversation indent this far over.

>lay into you with a subtle ad hominem

This is the pedantic reply in which I suggest that you might actually be thinking of argumentum ad verecundiam rather than argumentum ad hominem.

Edit: this is the edit in which I italicize the Latin terms above to make myself sound more erudite.

This is the ashamed reply in which I falsely reinterpret my original sentence, claiming that I intended both argumenta. This is the sentence in which I emit additional additional argumenta, which I just looked up in Wikipedia.

This sentence is the beginning of a long and tangentially relevant argument about the Crusades.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com