> I didn't say I was horrified by the comment, I said I was horrified to have upvoted it by mistake.
Sorry I wasn't specific enough. I actually realized this error after commenting, and considered editing, but honestly, I felt that it really wasn't that important, especially since my corrected statement would still make the same exact point.
> The intent of my comment was not to insult you (it really wasn't) but to get you to consider your own remarks, which I (perhaps naively) think that downvoting generally does.
No. Down voting isn't for getting people to think. It's for saying "No, this comment doesn't add anything to the conversation." Disagreeing with the sentiment is not good for down voting. A comment that you believe doesn't provide value, however, is.
If your goal is to get someone to think, it's better to communicate that in a comment.
> Do you think that calling people "a bunch of lemmings" makes for a better HN?
Yes, I do think calling lemmings lemmings is useful: that's what they are. You might disagree, but they are merely asking the same illogical and thoughtless questions. I feel my description was accurate and precise. Even the "stupid" remark, I feel, was justified. I actually wondered if a better word could be found, because I don't like using "stupid," but it's accurate. Gruber's questions to Google concerning Chrome's H.264 decision are stupid. This is especially true when you consider Gruber's history of defending Apple's decisions regarding it's support of Adobe.
> I've insulted plenty of people here in the past, maybe even you. For that I'm sorry. But I'm trying to be better than that, and although I don't think it's in evidence here, I'd like to believe that you are, too.
It's fairly easy: unless it's obviously not contributing to the discussion, assume the person is contributing. Even if you disagree. The language might be direct (or even harsh to some, as I admit "stupid" is), but for the type of people that visit HN, this is probably just our way of being as clear as possible. Even you had to comment on the specificity of whether you were horrified by my comment or the up voting of my comment. A point that is meaningless when you consider the point of the original comment.
This is, I fear, obvious to others when we place ourselves in social situations.
Wife:"Do you want to take the trash out for me?"
HN Husband: "No."
Wife:"Take out the trash, NOW."
HN Husband: "Yes, dear."
I'd much prefer someone clearly state how they feel then use weasel words constantly.
Consider for a moment my comment prior to this one, where I called out your "I meant to downvote your comment." Yes, it was harsh, but only because yours was equally (in my mine) harsh. However, the net result is now a discussion of the merits of downvoting, language, and the overall improvement of HN. Alone, both our comments could be considered the worst of the worst of HN commentary. Off-topic and insulting. However, the result of this commentary is, I believe, a worthwhile discussion on comments.
Basically, could I have used something besides "a bunch of lemmings"? Sure, I suppose I could have. However, it made my point easily enough, and expressed my thoughts accurately.