Hacker News Reader

Comment by notsony | Hacker News Reader

Your first point is of course true.

Your second point about "false flag" makes no sense whatsoever.

EDIT: This is why HackerNews is going to the dogs. This perfectly reasonable comment has been downvoted numerous times.

It's being downvoted because talking about the Clinton administration's financial backing in this thread is off-topic and a little absurd, and this comment is seen as an extension of the first.

But talking about an investigation into FIFA is somehow on-topic and relevant to HackerNews?!

> But talking about an investigation into FIFA is somehow on-topic and relevant to HackerNews?!

To the extent that the FIFA discussion is inappropriate for HN, the correct response is to flag the article, not post things off-topic to the article in the thread.

Whether the FIFA-related article is appropriate to HN is completely irrelevant, in any case, to discussion of whether the attack on Clinton is itself on-topic to the thread discussing the FIFA article.

Oh, hello? Could everybody who downvoted please upvote? Thank you.

"Clinton Foundation took at least $1,250,000 from Qatar and its World Cup committee implicated in FIFA bribery scandal

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3099839/Clinton-Foun... Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3099839/Clinton-Foun...

That's not what your comment was about :)

Is it really absurd?

"Clinton Foundation took at least $1,250,000 from Qatar and its World Cup committee implicated in FIFA bribery scandal"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3099839/Clinton-Foun...

Your comment is completely off-topic and irrelevant. It's not like the US can only investigate one crime at a time.

"Clinton Foundation took at least $1,250,000 from Qatar and its World Cup committee implicated in FIFA bribery scandal"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3099839/Clinton-Foun...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com