Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by refulgentis | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

refulgentis

- Parent is still the top comment.

- 2 hours in, -3.

2 replies:

- [It's because] you're hysterical

- [It's because you sound] like a crypto bro

- [It's because] you make an equally unfounded claim

- [It's because] you didn't provide any proof

(Ed.: It is right in the link! I gave the #s! I can't ctrl-F...What else can I do here...AFAIK can't link images...whatever, here's imgur. https://imgur.com/a/mkDxe78)

- [It's because] you sound personally offended

(Ed.: Is "personally" is a shibboleth here, meaning expressing disappointment in people making things up is so triggering as invalidate the communication that it is made up?)

View on HN

Your original comment opened with:

  You are lying.

This is an ad hominem which assumes intent unknown to anyone other than the person to whom you replied.

Subsequently railing against comment rankings and enumerating curt summaries of other comments does not help either.

Lying is defined as "used with reference to a situation involving deception or founded on a mistaken impression."

What am I missing here?

Those weren't curt summaries, they were quotes! And not pull quotes, they were the unedited beginning of each claim!

>> This is an ad hominem which assumes intent unknown to anyone other than the person to whom you replied.

> What am I missing here?

Intent. Neither you nor I know what the person to whom you replied had.

> Those weren't curt summaries, they were quotes! And not pull quotes, they were the unedited beginning of each claim!

Maybe the more important part of that sentence was:

  Subsequently railing against comment rankings ...

But you do you.

I commented as I did in hope it helped address what I interpreted as confusion regarding how the posts were being received. If it did not help, I apologize.

>>> This is an ad hominem which assumes intent unknown to anyone other than the person to whom you replied.

>> [elided] What am I missing here?

> Intent. Neither you nor I know what the person to whom you replied had.

Here's the part you elided:

"I looked up the definition [of lying]. It says "used with reference to a situation involving deception or founded on a mistaken impression."

That makes it quite clear whether or not I'm missing "intent".

This also makes it quite clear that I am not making an ad hominem.

I am using a simple, everyday, word used to describe the act of advancing false claims, whether through deception or mistaken impression.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com