I think it's perfectly acceptable to ask that perceptions be stated explicitly as such, rather than leaving statements open to easy misinterpretation.
Indeed, you have broken your own rule and left your comment open for easy misinterpretation.
> Indeed, you have broken your own rule and left your comment open for easy misinterpretation.
Have I? What's easy to misinterpret?
However, I've never interpreted our community to be like that. On this forum I don't expect to hear
The discrepancy between how much jail time the people who upset the government get, and the people who commit real crimes is getting bigger
without evidence any more than I expect to hear
database server X is becoming faster than database server Y
without evidence.
I think you would do well to answer that question first, as your question presupposes this question has already been answered, when it fact it has not.
Asking why X is superior to Y is nothing more than an attempt to place the burden on someone else rather than yourself. You presupposed that Y is superior to X without any proof being offered.
It's akin to me asking you "When did you stop beating your wife," or other questions like that.
> Have I? What's easy to misinterpret?
So, specifically, with your statements, you make it seem like you've already proven your side, when in fact, you've done no such thing. It's disingenuous and manipulative. So, either you meant to be that way (dishonest), or you simply made a mistake of not backing up your opinion (What you are arguing against).
So, considering the later is what you are arguing against, it's very easy to assume you are simply trying to be dishonest. I'd like to think better of HN, and assume that people generally speak their opinion, and only assume they are speaking fact when they are providing sources or it's something I also know about.
> Well, I prefer the latter because it leads to a community where I can take more posts at face value and thus learn quicker.
Their is asking for clarification, and asking for clarification rudely, which is what I saw happening, as did others, I imagine. Their is value in asking for citations, no one questions that. The GP was clearly stating an opinion based on his own observations. The question in response was of little value because it was merely being antagonistic.
> I don't think it's unreasonable to encourage this kind of behaviour.
Peppering phrases with weasel words? People should just say what they think, rather than qualify every statement with qualifying statements. Case in point:
> It seems to have very little cost.
Citation needed.
> > It seems to have very little cost.
> Citation needed.
Yes you're right. I should have said "I think it seems to have very little cost".
We are. That you are confused is clear by other remarks, and it's almost time for GoT, so I don't feel like spending the time restating what has already been said.
> I should have said...
I know what you meant. I didn't really need a citation. I've already made it clear my stance on the matter.
However, that you would make such an error and then question whether we are talking about the same issue should be troublesome for you. In a topic on this very subject, you yourself can't meet your own standards of clarity. So, if you said something different then what you meant, how can you presume to understand those that attempt to hold conversations with you?
It's far easy to assume opinion then to assume perfect English. Especially on a board where English is not always the first language, and the subtleties of "It seems to have very little cost" and "I think it seems to have very little cost" is meaningless to all but a rare few.
What is wrong is nitpicking apart the nuanced difference when it was just a casual intelligent comment made in a social setting, where reasonable expectation is to get the point rather than belabor its numerous subtle variants pursuant to wanton misinterpretation.