zlacker

[parent] [thread] 4 comments
1. tptace+(OP)[view] [source] 2025-04-24 02:37:49
You should care if you're being combatative, but, even more importantly, quoting previous comments the way you're doing doesn't work well on HN and is also a flamewar trope. Everybody can read the comments you're responding to. Just refer back to them in prose. A single quote, maybe 2 in a long comment, fine, but what you're doing now creates the impression that you're sort of rebutting what the previous commenter said as you read them, sentence by sentence, which is a tell that you're not actually thinking about what they said.

Also: they're pretty clearly wrong, so you shouldn't need any of this to refute them.

replies(1): >>wubrr+w3
2. wubrr+w3[view] [source] 2025-04-24 03:28:36
>>tptace+(OP)
I am rebutting what the previous commenter said, sentence by sentence (almost), I don't know why that tells you that I'm not actually thinking about what they said though. Did I misunderstand or misrepresent something they said?
replies(2): >>gpvos+Js >>dcow+PO1
◧◩
3. gpvos+Js[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-24 08:51:57
>>wubrr+w3
Going against someone is not the same as rebutting, the quality of the argument counts.
◧◩
4. dcow+PO1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-24 18:18:38
>>wubrr+w3
Because it’s easy to respond to one-off sentences. It’s harder to respond to the substantial argument they make.
replies(1): >>wubrr+2p4
◧◩◪
5. wubrr+2p4[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-25 16:39:38
>>dcow+PO1
What substantial argument?
[go to top]