If someone can tell me why the original HN title was wrong, that would be greatly appreciated.
No big deal, just curious.
I don't know why people at HN (pg? someone else?) are applying such a heavy hand to the title editing, but it's getting tiring. Perhaps there are good counter-examples, where they've made links more on-point by changing them (I'd be interested to see them if anyone has them), but the posts that stand out in my mind have been made both less relevant and less interesting thanks to editing by someone at HN.
The last thing I wanted to mean was that bored people were boring, as this new title seem to imply. I find this a little insulting, and definitely wrong.
My point was about Michael Arrington only, and referring to this latest post and his "I am bored because of you guys" insinuation.
So, ironically, by removing the "Michael Arrington" the title has become more "uncivil" and disrespectful IMO. I wish it could be reverted back (I will put a foot note in my article to apologize to HN readers)
Wouldn't that only be relevant if people didn't read the argument and commented solely on the title? The article in question was pointed directly at Arrington, so it's not like anyone's going to miss that.