Audacity's team is censoring legitimate questions

"The person submitting this link to HN posted a snarky rhetorical question" is an assumption, and one that I can state categorically and with 100% confidence is incorrect.

>You have presented it as a rhetorical question

I did not.

>work on your presentation if that wasn’t the intention

I'm not repeating myself on this again. Go read my comments elsewhere.

>Nobody said anything about bad faith

You tried to tell me that I had asked a rhetorical question when I did not. That's assuming bad faith.

>What I don’t understand is why you would expect any outcome other than what happened

Who said that I did? The github issue even mentions my expectations. But I'm sure you read it in its entirety and knew that already.

>There’s no need to dramatize something that’s already abhorrent.

You're wrong again. By raising the issue on github and then submitting it to HN, at least one more person is aware of it. Which means that I achieved my goal and made the world a better place today.

>This particular incident isn’t worthy of its own HN thread.

That may or may not be the case, I'm fairly new to HN. I thought it was. I have since re-read the HN rules and I stand by that decision, unless you have a rule that I may have missed that you'd like to point out?

>Your own efforts are detrimental to the credibility of the people who are being targeted by Muse Group, as linked above.

Not so. As I mentioned, at least one person will be taking a harder look at audacity as a result of this. The impact might not have been as wide as I would have liked, but I did achieve my goal.

>if you want to work towards any resolution you must always assume good faith, otherwise why even bother talking to them.

I've covered this in other comments and I'm tired of repeating myself. If you're not just asking this rhetorically, you can find the answer easily.

>scumbag is name calling.

No. I don't accept that in this case. I maintain that it's purely descriptive. See my comments elsewhere.

>before that you accused them of including spyware

I did not. The question was a hypothetical. I opined that it sounded like that to me, and asked if this was the consensus or not.

Further, even if you do read it as an accusation, the use of the term "spyware" is obviously hyperbolic and not intended to be taken literally.

>that's where you closed the door to a constructive response

Actually, they had previously closed the door to a constructive response when they failed to respond to a horde of other questions. Questions which still remain unanswered.

I could go and do your research for you to show you the history and when this happened, but I can't be bothered. The history is all there if you care to be properly informed.

>but you asked it in front of the core developers

...who should have the ability to accept public scrutiny if they're going to run a public project.

>not the right place for that question

What, pray tell, was the right place? And what "reasonable" response do you think would have been likely from the scumbags?

>and it wasn't clear enough that that was your question.

I have acknowledged elsewhere that this does indeed appear to be the case.

>yes, saw that. clear now. i wasn't able to see that from your initial message.

Cool. Yeah, I didn't initially elaborate on my motivations. Didn't occur to me.

>that doesn't excuse the tone. and that is not just addressed to you but to everyone who is just yelling at the developers instead of constructively pointing out the errors of their ways.

When you constructively point out the error of their ways, you get a bunch of reactions from the community agreeing with your post, and then you are are ignored without any comment from the maintainers...

...If you're lucky: Sometimes high level muse representatives chime in to sarcastically accuse you of posting copypasta.

I could go and do your research for you to show you the history and when this happened, but I can't be bothered. The history is all there if you care to be properly informed.

>then do that and be done with it.

I've already done it. Did it before posting my github issue.

>if there is no point in talking to the original developers then why do it? especially in that tone?

I've covered this in other comments and I'm tired of repeating myself. If you're not just asking this rhetorically, you can find the answer easily.

>the civil thing... (bla bla bla)

That would not have achieved my goal. This did. To see what my goal was, go read my other comments. Covered elsewhere, tired of repeating myself, bla bla bla ;)

>i take issue with the form and the tone in which those accusations are being made.

You have clearly not looked into this situation in enough depth.

>if you want the developers and owners of audacity to listen, then walk away from their project, and make it clear that they are loosing their userbase. but don't yell at them. that's not helping. i would not listen to that. and i don't expect them to listen to that either.

Firstly, I hate to be the grammar nazi, but it's "losing". "loosing" is a pet peeve of mine and I simply. couldn't. resist. Sorry!

if you want the developers and owners of audacity to listen

That wasn't my goal. I knew there was no chance of that. Covered elsewhere, tired of repeating myself, bla bla.

but don't yell at them. that's not helping

It did.

i would not listen to that.

That wasn't my goal. Covered elsewhere, tired of repeating myself, bla bla.

>and i don't expect them to listen to that either.

Scumbags need to be called scumbags. But that's a whole philosophical debate that I really just can't even be bothered with. If you disagree, then that's nice and I commend your altruism. But you're wrong :P ;)

And you don't.

And how dare you presume to tell me otherwise?

Asshole.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.