Besides it's not really important that we know your opinion of 'rayiner. You've been around awhile; we have some idea. 'rayiner has been around longer, and through copious posting we know exactly what 'rayiner will say about any favorite topic. (One reason I always have "showdead" on is that occasionally someone will write an entertaining spot-on parody of a top contributor that gets instantly downvoted to oblivion.) 'rayiner is not shy about being a lawyer, so any suspicions about that can be harbored without mention. We can disagree with 'rayiner in many different ways without specifically violating the fairly lax norms of HN.
I've been around a few years prior to this account...
But your comments are interesting, I cannot tell if you understand/agree with my viewpoint (and it's totally ok if you even vehemtly disagree with me); I just think that HN in general, should allow for deeper meta-discussion. We have a TON of brilliant people in this community. But they appear to have a cloistered view of the world.
Shills exist. My opinion of Rayiner is based on nearly four years of commentary. I stand by my point, and unless you have read HN daily for nearly eight years, I don't give credence to your view over mine.
Just look at her whole position re Snowden when that shitstorm broke.
Do you have any single denial regarding the nefarious actions of the USG and the NSA? If you do, then I doubt various aspect of your make up.
You just can't make this accusation without evidence, and opposing opinions aren't evidence. I've posted this perhaps a hundred times in the last year.
I'm cutting you a ton of slack here because I know you mean well and (if I may say so affectionately) are a bit of a hothead. But please just don't do this. Otherwise, speaking of lawyers, the moderation-laywer faction among HN users is going to pile on me demanding to know under which subsection we let you off for things we punish others for.
I recognize that you're giving my slack, and I want to be sure that you know how fucking much I love HN.
I agree to your terms but I really want to meet you in person because you're awesome, and we both love this industry.
I'm in SF, tell me when and where and I buy.
I don't read HN daily for more than a few days at a time, and even that has been for far less than eight years. I'm not saying that anyone is "not a shill". They're all dogs, why couldn't they all be shills? (n.b. I'm not referring to HN users here, but rather to "everyone on the internet".) I say rather that we should strive to think anything without speaking everything. This is for our own good, but also for the comfort of others. Our gracious hosts have drawn a line. While the line might seem arbitrary, their standing to draw it is not.
> How would you prefer that I make my opinion known of Rayiner
Just don't. People making their "opinion" of other people "known" is basically pro wrestling without the fun.
It's pretty easy.
And I openly disagree with your perception: HN is. Core of this industry, do not censor it.
Thanks
* A lawyer, ie, someone with real domain knowledge of how the law works, which is a topic that comes up a lot on HN and which generates about as much misinformed commentary here as crypto does,
* A compiler hacker --- in fact, he's part of a weird cabal of "people who graduated from law school and hack on compilers" on HN. Implicitly, he's also probably in the top 1% of programming ability among vocal commenters on the site,
* Someone who doesn't hold the modal political perspective of the vocal HN userbase, which means there's a point to discussing politically-tinged topics with him --- you might learn something surprising,
* A relentlessly, reliably civil commenter, despite being the routine target of a hailstorm of comments like yours upthread.
There are much cheaper ways to find shills than to source them from practicing lawyers with toddlers who hack on compilers in their spare time.
I'm not one of the "moderation lawyers" badgering Dan about you in private. I'm badgering you about it publicly. Please stop mistreating people on HN just because you don't agree with them.
I really took this comment to heart:
Someone who doesn't hold the modal political perspective of the vocal HN userbase, which means there's a point to discussing politically-tinged topics with him --- you might learn something surprising,
A relentlessly, reliably civil commenter, despite being the routine target of a hailstorm of comments like yours upthread.
So for that I thank you and I shall lighten up.
Honestly, as we have disagreed in the past about several political/security/gov issues -- I appreciate you saying this. Mainly because I am always open to learning, and when you say I may learn more from Rayiner WRT politically-tinged topics - I will not shy away from that.
So based on this, I apologize to Rayiner for calling HIM a shill.