LOL just got kicked out of @ycombinator

Post by neonological » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 8:31 AM UTC

ohyeshedid wrote: post #481

neonological wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean he can lie right? Like I said, it's a conflict of interest. Most of the things I remarked on are 50/50 in the sense that I'm only 50% sure something sketchy is going on, worth remarking on, but I am not confirming anything. But Dangs post here looks like a freaking announcement where the intention is to indeed pin it at the top of the thread with fake upvotes or whatever mechanism they use with this site. This…

So instead of good faith conversation, you just opted for conspiracy babble?

Post by doctor_eval » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 9:55 AM UTC

doctor_eval wrote: post #449

dang wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh yes that's clear, but it's also bloody clever and you get points for that. I'm sorry if my reference seemed like a swipe; I was just trying to speak duck with you. When people say this kind of stuff to me, I try not to take it personally because the truth is that you don't know me and I don't know you; what you're saying is not what you think of me , it's what you think of the image that you've constructed from a…

I don’t know how you do this, dang, but I certainly wish I had your level of chill.

Post by NicoJuicy » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 10:13 AM UTC

neonological wrote: post #501

NicoJuicy wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're response to my appreciation of moderation is ( while you are protesting against any moderation outside of the community ): > This is off topic. You are literally comparing things with ( in 1 post): China, covid, dictatorship, serial killers, censorship, educational creationism, biology in schools, ... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ It's an upvoted comment by a moderator... Nothing more, nothing less. As I said before: chill. Ps. S…

>You are literally comparing things with ( in 1 post): China, covid, dictatorship, serial killers, censorship, educational creationism, biology in schools, ... Those are called examples. Examples in service of helping to illustrate a point that is still on topic. You on the other hand wanted to talk about things that were never remarked upon or even true. I never said anything about how dang should stop moderating an…

Post by garmaine » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 10:34 AM UTC

dang wrote: post #524

garmaine wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could just say “As there is a conflict of interest, I will not comment on the substance of this tweet.”

But that's not the reason and wouldn't be true. There's another aspect too: I try to avoid being a bloodless ghoul in communicating with this community. People here don't want stiff corporate pantomimes, and that suits me fine, because I would hate to do that; or rather I can't because my body would reject it. That's an old Willie Brown line btw.

Post by NicoJuicy » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 10:43 AM UTC

neonological wrote: post #549

ggm wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not addressing the point. You said he only downweights for one reason. Plainly, he has declared consistency in downweighting for many reasons. No amount of self justification changes the fact you said he ONLY downweights for one reason, and that's factually incorrect. What he did in this specific case? Different matter. What he does as a matter of both stated policy and declared intent and I would suggest, evi…

>Why can't you just accept that and say so? What's blocking you from acknowledging your own words are just incorrect? Very simple logic. He's in a position where he can lie. Conflict of interest. He's paid by the company who sponsors this news site. Why can't you get this simple logic through your head? >You said he only downweights for one reason. Please read my post. I said what I meant WAS THIS: The only thing Dan…