Hacker News Reader

So? The point remains the article specifically cites a situation where the adoption process fails, which directly contradicts the previous statement, and lends credence to the theory that the commenter hadn't actually read the majority of the article.

View on HN

> The point remains the article specifically cites a situation where the adoption process fails

No, it doesn't. The article vaguely alludes to a third-hand description of the failure of a legal tactic which taken literally is nonsensical; and as far as I can tell, when those two people tried in the sensible standard manner used by everyone else (the manner in which the article is about), did succeed.

> No, it doesn't.

Yes, it does. It literally has that, right there, in the text. As quoted, you are factually incorrect.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com