[Kalium]

I don't like to hand out downvotes, but your conduct here is possessed of bountiful opportunities for improvement.

Might I suggest taking a walk? Perhaps come back when you're more inclined to engage with the commenter's not-completely-unreasonable point about cognitive biases?

[vram22]

1. Might I suggest that you try to sound less prissy / less like a scandalized Victorian schoolmarm in your choice of words, and meaning?

2. See what I said to user maccard in this subthread, here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26683149

Much of that reply applies to you too, both about thinking too much (mathematically or analytically) (or prissily :) about really simple staightforward issues, as well as the reverse, i.e. not thinking (clearly) enough about stuff that is really easy to understand (like my comment that you responded to). All you have to do is not let you own biases (as you presumptuously, wrongly and hastily accused me of) get in your way.

[vram22]

Even your first sentence above smacks of weasel words:

"I don't like to ...".

Just "hand out" [1] the freaking downvote or comment and be done with it, FFS. Qualifying with "I don't like to" is weak. But then again, it's clear that you are ... weak.

[1] Jeez, "hand out", ha ha. Seems like you are trying to sound like a king, or more likely, queen, from on high, to boost your ego, what else.

But no thanks, Your Majesty. I'll skip kissing the tip of your robe, or whatever that fucking retarded feudal custom is. /s

Yeah, right :)

[vram22]

>engage with the commenter's not-completely-unreasonable point

Wow.

Might I suggest you stop using weasel words, or stop waffling.

You could have said "reasonable point", unless you're waffling to leave yourself with an escape hatch (because you don't have the courage of your convictions), which your later reply to yellowapple also suggests:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26607927

That reply sounds heavily like weasel words to me.

[yellowapple]

That point about cognitive biases wasn't really relevant, though. Writing off someone's (clearly well-thought-out) opinion as some run-of-the-mill "back in my day" remark also happens to possess bountiful opportunities for improved conduct.

Happy to take part in undoing downvotes, though, while we're on the topic of HN metadiscussions. Or is defending one's own arguments/positions out of line on HN these days?

[Kalium]

For my own part, I mark a difference between fairly defending one's position and what we witnessed above. That was:

* Poorly formed. It has no clear central thesis and could have been reduced to and improved by a handful of relevant links.

* Lacking in charity. The comment in question did not have to be read as a personal attack, as others demonstrate.

* Egotistical. Your typical user does not check the CV of every commenter they engage with. This is not a reasonable expectation. Very few commenters are particularly notable people, and this user does not appear to be a noted agronomist whose opinion could be reasonably regarded as authoritative.

All of these combine in my eyes to create a comment worth discussing as poor in the hopes of improving the contributor's behavior. They clearly have good information to share. We would all be better off if that was what took place.

I agree with you that the comment that received this response is also far from ideal. I think it is reflexively glib, but perhaps without rising to the level of meriting a call-out. I recognize that this is a judgement call on which reasonable people might disagree.

[vram22]

Just to have fun (as you probably thought you were having with me, even if subconsciously), I'm reviewing a few of your points "in the hopes of improving the contributor" (presumptuous and prissy!), as you said about me:

Poor command or at least poor usage of language, even though guessing English is your native tongue:

Minion, one does not say:

>a comment worth discussing as poor

Instead, one says something like:

A poor comment.

Or even:

I did not like that comment.

KISS!

>They clearly have good information to share. We would all be better off if that was what took place.

Ahhh. The vain and unwarranted use of the royal "we". Sadly, "we" can see that "thee" have (or is it "thou hast", I don't care, ha ha) aspirations of greatness beyond thy abilities, as said in a sibling or nephew/whatever comment, varlet :)

Also, how doth thou know that they have good information to share, if thou implieth (above) that such did not take place?

Har de har har.

<Guffaws some more. Exeunt right.>

[vram22]

I'm a bit busy, will reply after a while.

[vram22]

I finally replied, in other parts of this subthread. Your points were not important enough to me to reply earlier :)

Not worth my time to engage more, due to the silliness and insignificance of the whole (finger-pointing and moralising) issue.

I will end now, but, as a public service (like you grandiosely and egotistically thought you were doing, except that mine is sincere and better-motivated), to show others the cheapness and shittiness of such finger-pointing and moralising, I will leave you with this very relevant quote, by past U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, often termed "The Man in the Arena":

Video:

Watch "The Man in the Arena – Teddy Roosevelt (A Powerful Speech from History)" on YouTube

https://youtu.be/A311CnTjfos

Text:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_in_a_Republic