[tempguy9999]

How do we "reasonably discuss any issues" unless someone presents examples of the "issues"? I suspect most of these "issues" don't exist.

> reasonable people do not keep lists of examples like this

Per https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21796919 you don't have to.

The lack of such delinquent SO examples here is telling.

[ardy42]

> How do we "reasonably discuss any issues" unless someone presents examples of the "issues"?

How most people discuss things: by relating their experiences and impressions, and listening to those of others with an open mind.

Here's mine: it can be very obnoxious to extract a good answer out of the SO community for a challenging question. Often all you get are answers to different easier questions or a useless "don't do that." It takes a lot of annoying policing and preemptive anticipations of SO's typical bad answers to keep things on track. I've also personally come across many closed questions that were helpful and exactly what I wanted. I've also found myself having to pre-emptively address the closers because they're too trigger happy.

What I've just said is true, but the few examples I have would link you to my SO account, and honestly, you don't seem like the kind of person who I'd feel comfortable sharing that with.

> I suspect most of these "issues" don't exist.

I suspect you have a perspective that makes you blind to them. I would suggest listening more and holding off on the aggressive challenges rather than opening with them.

> The lack of such delinquent SO examples here is telling.

It only tells that people might be reluctant to jump through the precise hoops you've laid out for them.

[tempguy9999]

Interesting response. OK.

> 1) by relating experiences and impressions, 2) and listening to those of others with an open mind

1) may not be correct (plus my own impression that SO isn't terrible doesn't count?) and 2) I've a perfectly open mind, that's why I asked the question. I asked for evidence. That's a reasonable request.

> it can be very obnoxious to ... to keep things on track

I've experienced some of that, in a minor form. That people are having trouble showing much evidence is what I keep coming back to. It may be that you're asking higher level questions than I am.

> What I've just said is true...

That's useless to me or to this argument. I want evidence.

> few examples I have would link you to my SO account

well, OK, I can sympathise with that - to an extent.

> people might be reluctant to jump through the precise hoops you've laid out for them.

Garbage. What 'precise hoops'? I asked that those hard done by post some personal evidence, which is easily found (if it exists).

[ardy42]

> (plus my own impression that SO isn't terrible doesn't count?)

It does, but you didn't just contribute it to the discussion. You've been outright declaring your interlocutor's impressions to be wrong and making demands of them in a way that discourages me from wanting to listen to you.

>> people might be reluctant to jump through the precise hoops you've laid out for them.

> Garbage. What 'precise hoops'? I asked that those hard done by post some personal evidence, which is easily found (if it exists).

It's not garbage. You just outlined your hoops again. I'm not jumping through them--for reasons you can sympathize with, and I'm sure there are others like me.

And honestly, I just don't like your attitude, which is actually not a very helpful one. I can see why you're so defensive of SO and Wikipedia.

[seanhunter]

> > people might be reluctant to jump through the precise hoops you've laid out for them. > > Garbage. What 'precise hoops'?

Might be worth asking yourself whether "Garbage" is a worthwhile contribution to the discussion here. In this thread you stress that you have "a perfectly open mind" and yet when people disagree you seem to take it extremely personally.

[tempguy9999]

'garbage' because those claimed hoops were never listed, strangely enough. Even when I asked for them.

> you stress that you have "a perfectly open mind" and yet when people disagree you seem to take it extremely personally

I do not take it personally. I asked for evidence. Very little was forthcoming. I've an open mind to opinions backed up by evidence. Opinion without some basis is useless or worse. QV. anti-vaxxers, chem-trailers etc. Or do you support these people's views just because they opine so? Please answer this point specifically.

[seanhunter]

I'm not supporting their views at all. You said someone's comment was garbage, I asked whether that was a constructive contribution and you assume from that that I'm taking sides here, which is an example of what I'm calling "taking it personally".

Civil and open dialogue on HN is important. We can disagree about things without using dismissive language of that kind.