Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by fsckboy 1892 days ago
> misread: I didn’t accuse you of being a pedant

and nor did I say you did, who now is misreading?

why do you avoid replying to the the main thrust of my rebuttal?

again, I made a cogent argument about the main topic, and whether I labelled a old connector the way many others did is irrelevant to the topic at hand, and if anything hobbles your pedantry hobby horse. Where are your critiques of the more egregious errors in TFA?
1 comments
hug 1892 days ago
You didn’t rebut a thing I said: the only substance of my initial comment was that you had mis-named some connectors... which you did. Your reply contained no proof otherwise, except the shop link which I explicitly addressed. If you’re really asserting that I’m wrong about connector names, here you go:

> Because personal computers first used DB-25 connectors for their serial and parallel ports, when the PC serial port began to use 9-pin connectors, they were often labeled as DB-9 instead of DE-9 connectors, due to an ignorance of the fact that B represented a shell size. It is now common to see DE-9 connectors sold as DB-9 connectors

from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-subminiature

There are plenty of other sources available, which I’m not going to bother looking up.

As for the rest of your initial comment, I don’t disagree: you made a pretty substantive contribution to the thread, but again I never said you didn’t.

The main thrust of your “rebuttal” is trying to fight an argument I’m not making.

link
fsckboy 1892 days ago
thank you for directing my attention to the mistake.

I mistakenly took your phrase "if you want to be pedantic" to mean that I was being pedantic, but inadequately so, a common just desserts.

now, if you want to be pedantic, which you seem to, you might wish to say that I did not mistake your phrase but in fact I chose the most common usage of that phrase as its clear meaning, and you could have been more clear simply by saying "not to be pedantic, but...", as my comment was clearly not focused on model numbers but on real issues of substance, and your comment was focused on pedantry.

link