Hacker News Reader

Comment by Dylan16807 | Hacker News Reader

They're annoyed at your "Have you considered that there's a reason?" for strongly implying there's an explanation for the incorrect fact. They dislike that whole type of statement. Their reading comprehension is fine and you're just nitpicking their wording.

Also, saying "Have you considered that there's a reason?" is not at all the same as "asking why it does a thing". It's a strong statement on its own. If your original comment had stopped after the first sentence then you would have gotten a very different response.

View on HN

Wow, your edit of your post is completely different from your original message - "You asked why it spams wait over and over. But it doesn't. That's the incorrect claim."

Why did you edit it so drastically? Was it because of poor reading comprehension?

> They said they dislike the person that says to explain an incorrect fact.

No, they said - literally - 'I have a pet peeve where people “explain why things are a certain way” when they are not that way'. Your reading is not what they said. I'm sorry but you're batting .000 here.

> You're the one that said to explain an incorrect fact.

A person asserted something (through conversational norms), and I basically said "Isn't there a reason for that?", and now I'm the one who is being argued with as if I asserted the thing in the first place. Why aren't you responding to streetmeat, telling them that it doesn't spam "wait...wait"?

edit: Dude, you've edited your post at least 4 times in the past 12 minutes, all of your posts being drastically different points, so I'm not sure which one I should respond to. I think I've responded to your 2nd edit, which I've essentially quoted in entirety as I saw it on my screen. Your current post is equally as ridiculous, but it isn't clear to me that I should spend any time on it if you are just going to edit it to be a completely different point again.

> Why did you edit it so drastically? Was it because of poor reading comprehension?

Yes I fucked up reading at first.

It's correct now.

Appending without editing: I've had a long day, I don't usually edit nearly as much.

Appending without editing: I should have just deleted it and made a new comment, I guess? I didn't know you were trying to reply, sorry.

Appending without editing:

> A person asserted something (through conversational norms), and I basically said "Isn't there a reason for that?", and now I'm the one who is being argued with as if I asserted the thing in the first place. Why aren't you responding to streetmeat, telling them that it doesn't spam "wait...wait"?

The problem was not the first sentence where you did that. The problem was the second sentence. Don't motte and bailey this.

Appending without editing:

Also for the record I stand by the intent of the lines you quoted, though the wording is flawed in the first quote and fixed in my final version. The entirely incorrect thing I said at first is gone and you didn't respond to it so at least that worked out.

Cheers, mate. Glad to know I’m not speaking Sumerian here. Right on the money.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com