[PeCaN]

Reposting the deleted comment for people who don't have showdead on:

> Right. So I civilly answer allegations that uber employees are somehow unethical or complicit in harassment or unethical behavior, and the perpetrators of this libel are safe, and I'm the one that's banned. Got it.

> You may not agree with what I wrote but I stand by everything I wrote as being respectful. Except to Mike Isaac who has an agenda against Uber with his reporting. Besides that, can you point to a single comment that was "uncivil"?

Reposting because frankly, there hasn't been anything uncivil. Just dang's agenda, as usual.

[dang]

The account posted Also, it's my pleasure to say "fuck you, Mike Isaac" before editing that out when another user objected. That's obviously uncivil. But in this case the larger problem is that it's (more or less) a single-purpose account for getting into flamewars about Uber. That's not how this site is supposed to be used.

Edit: We'd be happy to unban you as well if you'd simply promise to be civil in the future. One of the tentacles of my "agenda" is personally unkilling your high-quality technical comments so HN readers can enjoy them. It would be nice if we could just publish them in the first place.

[rogerdonaldson]

"But in this case the larger problem is that it's (more or less) a single-purpose account for getting into flamewars about Uber. That's not how this site is supposed to be used."

So a person cannot give opinion in a civil way, and highlight information which was not known to others? It is "mandatory" to talk about multiple topics at HN?

How do you define "flamewars"? Just giving your opinion about a topic, discussing, debating is flamewars? Then one could say the entire world of comments on HN is flamewars, since most comments discuss and debate topics.

I believe arguing your opinion civilly, giving reasons etc, should be okay, regardless of whether you talk of only one topic -- or have a particular opinion on one side of the debate. Most users of the site typically have some view which falls on one side on any debate. But they defend it and give their reasons civilly. Thats the whole point, isnt it?

I have read employee8000's posts and they all seem civil. Except for the one which was changed. But that particular comment was wrong, his other comments on this thread are very civil IMHO.