> Clearly no
Please don't do this. I'm not talking about what the law is, I'm talking about what it can be. You are not responding to my argument.
Please don't do this. I'm not talking about what the law is, I'm talking about what it can be. You are not responding to my argument.
I'm particular the "clearly no" does not work. The "clear" thing was not what I was contesting.
And I want to state here that I don't want to relitigate anything in the original discussion. I'm only replying because you seem to misunderstand what this post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41607486 meant in the first place and I'm willing to explain in other wording what it meant.
Early in this conversation I made a comment that shifted the topic slightly, but was also a reply to the argument in the parent comment. tptacek's reply to me was not a reply to the argument in my comment. It was arguing past me. Or I could say it was strawmanning me, but that makes it sound too intentional.
I think that situation is pretty simple. It also seems pretty simple that you misunderstood my comment #41607486.
What's your actual criticism, other than the incorrect idea that I accused tptacek of being off-topic, and other than vague petty snipes?
So I'm not missing anything. You had exactly one criticism, and I explained over and over that it's not what I meant. You can't change what I meant no matter what you say; that criticism is flat-out invalid. And you have no replacement criticisms, despite implying you had some.
Cool, that means I'm clear of all accusations!
It has been partially updated but not enough.
> So I think it matters a great deal what it actually says now.
I never implied otherwise.
A suggestion for change is by definition based on the current version.