Hacker News Reader

I did not say what you said is "incendiary", I said it is "borderline incendiary". It's not incendiary since it is true, but it is expressed in such a pythy fashion as to be almost incendiary. Especially when I crafted my original comment to specifically acknowledge those cases.

Between your answer and MaxBarraclough's, one is tonally a quickwitted mean quip and the other is a well articulated and well meaning response.

View on HN

It’s terse, but sounds fine to me.

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Also in the rules, just a bit lower :

> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.

That's why I answered to one comment but not to the other. It's really sterile ground for an argument. Which I'd hoped that by carefully wording my first comment we could all avoid.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com