I don't call her that in public.
Let's say she was a damn genius. Do you expect her to have Google alerts setup for non official spellings of her school districts name? Is a genius supposed to be checking my browser history on my phone?
How smart would she have to be to find what I wrote?
>>>> Well, yes. Relationships don’t do well when one of the partners has this much contempt for the other. There’s a difference between knowing in your own mind she’s not the best at her job, and calling her a “ditzy” “illogical” “girl” in public.
>>> I don't call her that in public.
>> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38524596 is a publicly accessible URL. That’s what I meant. You’re assuming it doesn’t matter because she’s not smart enough to find it and recognize herself.
> Lol you're talking about having respect for someone I assume, but then you assume there's 'intelligence' in finding a random link in the world?
> Let's say she was a damn genius. Do you expect her to have Google alerts setup for non official spellings of her school districts name? Is a genius supposed to be checking my browser history on my phone?
> How smart would she have to be to find what I wrote?
How **** do you have to be to fail to realize "in public" does not mean "to her face?"
This is a public forum. Everything posted here is in public.
You're not as clever as you think you are.
2. Come on, you can figure out what they meant by "public". It's not in the broader spheres of influence that connect to her. She doesn't see this site, this site doesn't see her.
It should be obvious: that's the comment I was replying to.
> and even explicitly quote the stuff that has nothing to do with the "in public" you're responding to?
To preserve the context, because the original comment was deleted while the OP continued to defend it.
> 2. Come on, you can figure out what they meant by "public". It's not in the broader spheres of influence that connect to her. She doesn't see this site, this site doesn't see her.
Yeah, I did figure it out. But we're not Humpty Dumptys here, so we don't get to redefine words on a whim.
In short: that's what he meant, but that's not what "public" means.
Going by what you wrote, you were replying to this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38524906
You didn't say a single word about the next two comments in the chain. So I don't see how they act as context.
> Yeah, I did figure it out. But we're not Humpty Dumptys here, so we don't get to redefine words on a whim.
> In short: that's what he meant, but that's not what "public" means.
It's close enough.
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."
The strongest plausible interpretation is that you would use a different word than "public", but it's a pointless quibble. Not "How **** do you have to be", "You're not as clever".
Those insults are wildly unfitting for a complaint about wording.
Oh. Right. We're at Hackernews.
For example, I don't argue with every person I meet in public. I was actually a top 0.1% salesperson for 10 years nationwide in my industry. I do great meeting women and have fun on bars. In public I'm great. On a random website, not in public, I'm different.