Wait, what? This is the classic way by which someone expresses that they are not interested without saying so directly. Don't call us; we'll call you.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/may/08/change-li...
It's really cool that HN is going the reddit route of downmodding comments that they disagree with. Although I don't even think my comments would have been downmodded over there. Because we're all hip and "hackers" at HN we just tolerate and expect people to be shitty to each other in the business world. Real cool guys.
The only emotion I injected was "I am startled". Yeah, really `acid in temper or mood`. Especially when * ironically* I was addressing the acerbic comments being pointed at the author for ACTUALLY BELIEVING people when they told him they were interested.
Is it opposite day on HN or did I miss a memo?
"shitty" "can't believe" "pathetic"
Strong words. HN will generally downvote strong displays of negative emotions, especially if it's something purely subjective.
It was also slightly accusatory, saying other HN users were "making excuses" for this behavior. There's some ambiguity as to whether you meant the behavior itself was pathetic or the people "making excuses" were pathetic. I think you meant the latter.
Maybe this is an easier way to understand it: imagine you're in a room filled with people talking about this issue, and you stood up and said what you said out loud. How do you expect people to react? Positively?
I can't believe I'm explaining this in such detail. Haha.
I can't believe I'm explaining this in such deal. I meant the usage quite literally. I'm shocked that an intelligent community such as HN is excusing the behavior because it's supposedly "normal". I think the treatment and thus the excuses are "shitty" which doesn't have a formal definition for me to rattle off, but suffice it to say I think it covers "unacceptable behavior" which is a category that lying and leading people on generally falls into.
Perhaps your comment is getting downvoted because your premise seems incorrect? When I first saw your reply, I thought, "Hey! That's not fair! Just because I explained what people do doesn't mean that I excused what they do." I was being descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, I thought your reply was pretty unfair, but I was not going to reply because I felt like it was just splitting hairs.
Now that you're getting downvoted and have replied a second time, I just thought I'd point out that others may have felt the same way about your comment as I did. Indeed, the very same people who are downvoting your comment very well may not agree with the behavior that my comment described as being typical.
I don't buy your explanation. I'd like to, but all over this thread there are highly upvoted comments that explain that this guy was out of lining by expecting anything at all, even though Apple continually led him on. They could have sent two teeny-tiny bytes 'N' 'o' and been done. But instead they were dicks.
I don't really see why my reply was unfair. If you weren't making excuses for apple, fine, but there were dozens of posters on this topic that are/were.
On the other hand if the Apple engineer were the one writing the blog post everybody would jump on what he did that was wrong.
Dare I suggest you might be upset at an analogous situation in your own life?