Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by NilMostChill | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

NilMostChill

> No it isn’t.

Yes, it is.

> You know what they meant.

I have clearly stated what i think they meant.

They specifically said "disadvantages compared to us." that heavily implies ( if not outright declares ) an us vs them.

It seems you have a different interpretation, I'd be interested to hear what that is if you don't mind ?

> you are just one-upping them on a technicality in a way that doesn’t advance the discussion at all.

If you don't see how what i said was related to the discussion then we probably aren't going to agree on what constitutes a technicality.

View on HN

> I have clearly stated what i think they meant.

Hey and you were wrong. You are pretty bad at understanding what other people are saying.

> how what i said was related to the discussion

It wasn't related because the other person was correct in that you misunderstood my statement.

> Hey and you were wrong. You are pretty bad at understanding what other people are saying.

Or you are bad at conveying an explicit meaning.

> It wasn't related because the other person was correct in that you misunderstood my statement.

I've outlined why i thought what i did, if that was a misunderstanding of your intention I'm willing to accept that, doesn't mean what you said was clear.

> at conveying an explicit meaning.

The other person understood me just fine, and also noticed how obvious my statement was, and how you avoided it.

> doesn't mean what you said was clear.

Oh it absolutely does. The other person understood it perfectly.

> The other person understood me just fine, and also noticed how obvious my statement was, and how you avoided it.

Of a sample size of two that's a 50% failure rate.

You stated an us vs them, i pointed out that drawing an us vs them assumes that us and them are different.

That you apparently meant something different is odd to me, but you do you.

> Oh it absolutely does. The other person understood it perfectly.

Again, 50% failure rate.

If you wish to conclude that a 50% failure rate makes something obvious in favour of one side, feel free.

> Of a sample size

Well, actually it's extremely obvious there you aren't actually attempting to understand my argument.

The other person noticed it as well.

Notice, how instead of going on about this, you could have instead gone back to my message and actually tried to figure out what my argument was.

But you didn't.

Because you aren't interested in understanding what my argument was.

> that a 50% failure rate

Oh you still aren't getting it.

It's not a 50% failure rate. It is a 0% failure rate. Instead it is that someone else noticed they you werent even trying.

Of course you aren't going to admit that.

But if someone else backs me up, thats really good evidence.

I am fully confident that the success rate is 100% and actually you could understand the argument if you stopped doing what we both know you are doing right now.

I've clearly stated what my interpretation was, with an explanation of how i got there.

A single line explaining how "people vs nature" doesn't imply that people and nature are different things would have cleared this up easily but instead we get multiple instances of you saying "it's so obvious I'm not going to explain it"

However, you have full confidence that everything is cleared up, so i guess it must be.

I'll see myself out.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com