zlacker

[parent] [thread] 2 comments
1. dang+(OP)[view] [source] 2015-09-06 22:30:01
I don't think it was ad hominem, but it's possible that I misinterpreted your comment as snarkier than you meant it. If so, I'm sorry.
replies(1): >>lmm+Y1
◧
2. lmm+Y1[view] [source] 2015-09-06 23:08:35
>>dang+(OP)
The ad hominem was "doesn't get HN in the first place". It's very dismissive of people who disagree with you. And it's not the first time you've responded like this.

I don't get it? No, you don't get it.

replies(1): >>dang+t3
◧◩
3. dang+t3[view] [source] [discussion] 2015-09-06 23:51:33
>>lmm+Y1
Oh, I see now. Sorry about that. Normally I'd delete it, but in this case I suppose I'd better leave it in.

I still don't see any ad hominem, and as a statement of HN's very specific values it seems obvious to me, but you're right that I shouldn't have said it in a dismissive way.

[go to top]