Hacker News Reader

Comment by jessaustin | Hacker News Reader

This reply indicates that you are several layers of reading comprehension behind the conversation that 'buserror and I were having. Please note that 'buserror's post helpfully began with a <sarcasm on> tag. It would have taken you less time to re-read the thread, than copying-and-pasting that pile of irrelevance took.

If the irrelevant block-quote was an attempted meta-comment on a thread that you found irrelevant or confusing, then keep trying! Don't let me discourage you!

View on HN

well I was responding to you specifically. I fail to see how the quote is unrelated as it was from the most up-to-date sources regarding the situation. I apologize for assuming that your response was in earnest. Indeed, I did not see the sarcasm tag despite reading buserror's comment first and then your's. I still don't think your comment is factually correct and if it was in jest, I simply didn't see it as sarcastic despite it being in response to a sarcastic comment.

Also, it took me a few seconds to past that comment as I had it on the ready. So really no loss for me, except for responding to your comment, that has indeed cost me much more time than my first comment did. ;)

"After a lengthy investigation, lobbyists have determined that neither Glenn Marine nor its CEO "Fat" Leonard Francis have ever given any money to a PAC, super-PAC, campaign, or think tank."

"To bribe a C.O. directly is to ignore the chain of command, and that shit ain't cool."

I love how aren't reading my comment. I also didn't know buserror's sarcasm tag immediately transferred to your comment. I genuinely thought your comment was in earnest. The Four Seasons thing did happen, parts of your comment are factually wrong. The fact that you fail to see what I'm commenting on is probably as funny as my original mistake. Sarcasm tag or not I was still commenting on the lack of facts in your post. So agree to disagree??

"Whoosh!"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com