>No, the fact that he's not engaging with the argument that you want to have indicates neither (a) that his argument is any less valid nor (b) that he finds no fault in what's happened. The point he's making is orthogonal to yours, is absolutely germane to the story, and your pretense of not knowing that is far closer to trolling than anything he's ever said.
I'm nearly 40. I don't "troll". I tell it like I see it, whether you agree with it or not. Believe it or not, there ARE people with legitimate totally different opinions than yours or his. To the point that they see the "legalism" expressed in his comments as not only absurd but also insulting to the very notion of justice.
I also find the "trolling" accusations immature and idiotic -- they belong to discussions between teenagers.
I never assume anybody is trolling, just because I don't like their viewpoints -- which is something some people on the internet do a lot. Perhaps the net is the only place where they learned to discuss. Because in actual face to face discussions nobody calls the other a "troll".
>The anti-intellectualism of HN on "Your Rights Online" stories is galling.
What "anti-intellectualism"? I, for one, am all for Kant, Hegel, Plato and their ilk. Up to good ole Teddy Adorno, Christopher Lasch and George Steiner.
Disagreeing with letter-of-the-law interpretations is not anti-intellectualism. If anything, it's the opposite. It goes contrary to the mechanistic, by-the-books justification of the status quo.
>You just called 'anigbrowl (of all people) "worse than a troll". You should be embarrassed. But you're not, because the most vocal people on the thread agree with you. In other words, you're a bully. Go to hell.
You tell me that "I should be embarrassed" and I should "go to hell" and It's me who is the "bully"? Who the fuck do you think you are?
I called anigbrowl "worse than a troll" in the context of the conversation, in that he was a "pedant". One (troll) is a BS accusation, the other (pedant) is something that seriously screws discussions by focusing on inconsequential details.
You also conveniently sidestepped anigbrowl's constant condescending and mocking comments to me and other commenters in this thread.
Perhaps you identify with such abuse, and his stance of the "wise man, who has to educate the ignorant masses". It's, after all, what you do all the time too.
Before all the NSA leaks you told people, time and again, how it's totally implausible and conspiracy theory to believe they do those kind of things. And mocked them with a "wiser than thou" stance.
You consistently come out as a cold-war patriotic bigot who accepts the official government line hook-line and sinker.
Just a week or so ago, in the thread about Hastings, you mocked people considered a possible foul play on his death, dismissing them as conspiracy freaks, and adding condescendingly that "I only encouraged them".
Then, a few days later, the laters of Hastings with relation to FBI chasing him hit the press.
>Former U.S. National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism Richard Clarke told The Huffington Post that what is known about the single-vehicle crash is "consistent with a car cyber attack." Clarke said, "There is reason to believe that intelligence agencies for major powers" -- including the United States -- know how to remotely seize control of a car. "What has been revealed as a result of some research at universities is that it's relatively easy to hack your way into the control system of a car, and to do such things as cause acceleration when the driver doesn't want acceleration, to throw on the brakes when the driver doesn't want the brakes on, to launch an air bag," Clarke told The Huffington Post. "You can do some really highly destructive things now, through hacking a car, and it's not that hard." "So if there were a cyber attack on the car -- and I'm not saying there was," Clarke added, "I think whoever did it would probably get away with it."
I called anigbrowl "worse than a troll" in the context of the conversation, in that he was a "pedant". One (troll) is a BS accusation, the other (pedant) is something that seriously screws discussions by focusing on inconsequential details.
Except I don't think they're inconsequential at all, but rather key to understanding why this story is a crock. You started out in this thread with a pre-emptive finger-wagging rant; my suggestion is that you shouldn't dish out criticism if you can't take it.
As for your example of Hastings, the possibility of a conspiracy isn't evidence of a conspiracy. You don't appear to understand the difference.
>Except I don't think they're inconsequential at all, but rather key to understanding why this story is a crock. You started out in this thread with a pre-emptive finger-wagging rant; my suggestion is that you shouldn't dish out criticism if you can't take it.
Excuse me, I'm the one that can't take criticism? You came with guns blazing against everyone with an opposite opinion (ignorants, etc), focusing on the technicalities but never addressing the larger picture. You even invoked reasons about why the piece should never even be posted (the news outlet violates HN quality criteria, and such), and you even wrote that I should not even be allowed to make an initial comment (in your words, a "pre-emptive rant"). Perhaps you think your criticism is the only valid one, and everything else is the ramblings of idiots.
>As for your example of Hastings, the possibility of a conspiracy isn't evidence of a conspiracy. You don't appear to understand the difference.
I never said it was "evidence". I just said it was an indication -- instead of openly mocking everyone even considering it.
How about the constraint not to put things in my mouth?
I'm also of the opinion that in real life (as opposed to government issued statements), the context, motive and feasibility (not to mention past track record), are good enough to seriously consider the possibility. People expecting "evidence" of such things are naive in the way governments work -- a study in anti-activist and anti-dissident history will give them tons of examples of shameless power abuse by such agencies, from dealing drugs to support Contras, to openly killing dissidents.
You're a bully, and the longest wall of text you can come up with trying to equate the people you want to push around with the NSA won't conceal that.
A 2 line response. So classy.
1) It avoids discussing any particulars of what I said. You're so above that.
2) It repeats the BS accusation of me being a bully. Now, wouldn't me being "a bully" require that I somehow have a "lot of power" over someone and harass him with that? What kind of power would that be? The "power" of writing my opinion?
It's ludicrous, tptacek , THE top HN dog (and, I dunno, somebody with hell-banning powers) accusing someone else of being "a bully". For all I know, my account could be killed for speaking my mind against your opinion. You can't say the same about me.
3) It adds a new strawman, that I "equate you with the NSA". I only said you are a sucker for the government party line. Not that you're NSA or do it on purpose.
4) The "long wall of text" accusation. People use it when somebody responds in detail, to casually dismiss him as a rambling lunatic. (Of course your own "walls of text" in other comment threads are just detailed responses, nothing bad with them.). Subtle.
I'm nearly 40. I don't "troll". I tell it like I see it, whether you agree with it or not. Believe it or not, there ARE people with legitimate totally different opinions than yours or his. To the point that they see the "legalism" expressed in his comments as not only absurd but also insulting to the very notion of justice.
I also find the "trolling" accusations immature and idiotic -- they belong to discussions between teenagers.
I never assume anybody is trolling, just because I don't like their viewpoints -- which is something some people on the internet do a lot. Perhaps the net is the only place where they learned to discuss. Because in actual face to face discussions nobody calls the other a "troll".
>The anti-intellectualism of HN on "Your Rights Online" stories is galling.
What "anti-intellectualism"? I, for one, am all for Kant, Hegel, Plato and their ilk. Up to good ole Teddy Adorno, Christopher Lasch and George Steiner.
Disagreeing with letter-of-the-law interpretations is not anti-intellectualism. If anything, it's the opposite. It goes contrary to the mechanistic, by-the-books justification of the status quo.
>You just called 'anigbrowl (of all people) "worse than a troll". You should be embarrassed. But you're not, because the most vocal people on the thread agree with you. In other words, you're a bully. Go to hell.
You tell me that "I should be embarrassed" and I should "go to hell" and It's me who is the "bully"? Who the fuck do you think you are?
I called anigbrowl "worse than a troll" in the context of the conversation, in that he was a "pedant". One (troll) is a BS accusation, the other (pedant) is something that seriously screws discussions by focusing on inconsequential details.
You also conveniently sidestepped anigbrowl's constant condescending and mocking comments to me and other commenters in this thread.
Perhaps you identify with such abuse, and his stance of the "wise man, who has to educate the ignorant masses". It's, after all, what you do all the time too.
Before all the NSA leaks you told people, time and again, how it's totally implausible and conspiracy theory to believe they do those kind of things. And mocked them with a "wiser than thou" stance.
You consistently come out as a cold-war patriotic bigot who accepts the official government line hook-line and sinker.
Just a week or so ago, in the thread about Hastings, you mocked people considered a possible foul play on his death, dismissing them as conspiracy freaks, and adding condescendingly that "I only encouraged them".
Then, a few days later, the laters of Hastings with relation to FBI chasing him hit the press.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/24/journalist-m...
And we also got this tibbit:
>Former U.S. National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism Richard Clarke told The Huffington Post that what is known about the single-vehicle crash is "consistent with a car cyber attack." Clarke said, "There is reason to believe that intelligence agencies for major powers" -- including the United States -- know how to remotely seize control of a car. "What has been revealed as a result of some research at universities is that it's relatively easy to hack your way into the control system of a car, and to do such things as cause acceleration when the driver doesn't want acceleration, to throw on the brakes when the driver doesn't want the brakes on, to launch an air bag," Clarke told The Huffington Post. "You can do some really highly destructive things now, through hacking a car, and it's not that hard." "So if there were a cyber attack on the car -- and I'm not saying there was," Clarke added, "I think whoever did it would probably get away with it."
Hindsight's a bitch, right?