[ohyeshedid]

The first part of your opening sentence is demonstrative of my point, followed by both explanations. You manually touched the thread 3 times, and did nothing to verify or proactively protect the community, but speech you missed the context on is actionable. You've responded to me multiple times, but you still haven't done anything to correct the problem we were all addressing.

..and yeah, I disagree, as I did originally. I think you're being intellectually dishonest here now. So that's three shades.

The analog to 'because I said so' in the world of tools, is a hammer. As I said, it's your hammer, swing it or don't, but spare me the links to your own search results about communication when you aren't actually participating genuinely.

[dang]

It's not clear to me what you would consider more genuine. If you want to be specific, I can try!

[maxerickson]

It would be useful to be able to collapse comments on https://news.ycombinator.com/newcomments

[ohyeshedid]

You aren't communicating in good faith now, Dan. You're speaking through a communication framework, using conversational tactics. Those tools are wonderful when used to better ones own communication: be aware it becomes manipulation when used as a control on other's. This isn't confrontational, this is just direct and purposeful dialect.

Let's run this back, and this is the last time I'm engaging with you on this specific topic.

I said what I said, you responded that I broke the guidelines, and accused me of disrespect. Respect is a currency earned in grave experiences, to me. I understand you don't know that, but as a policy in this world: quickly questioning someones respect can be inflammatory. For clarity: Everything I say to you is with respect, care, and purpose.

I responded that it wasn't disrespectful, and voiced my disagreement.

You responded to that by cherry picking and scare-quoting collections of words, irrespective of the context of the entire comment, and flow of the conversation at the time.

That's against the spirit of HN: you already know this. The framework you're communicating through: seeking clarity, I don't understand, etc; entirely disingenuous when you actually know better. You violated the rules to make a point, while trying to tone police me, and coach me on how to communicate in a style you prefer.

Respectfully: "nobody knows who the fuck you are"

Absolute truth with levity, as a combined response to several posts by the OP repeatedly responding with incredulity that everyone wasn't happy to install an undisclosed extension while they advertised a search engine service on a website. It's an entirely obvious and honest response.

"<some gibberish about google evil here>"

Levity, brevity, and actually a small kindness. [1][2][3][4][5] Those are just the google related comments. To expound: that's childish circular logic, manipulative talking points, immature tribalism: gibberish is not out of bounds here. This isn't a garage project, this is a corporate venture with major backing; the second thread using other's names as social currency. Poor communication style: avoidant, defensive, while being deceptive: what about guidelines? Respect the house.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29168500 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29167981 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29169534 [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29168719 [5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29166408

"you created this problem for yourself"

Follow the thread, I refuse to engage with you when you're choosing to ignore conversational flow. They created the undisclosed requirement, the requirement was the most mentioned complaint: they created this problem. That is not a slap, it's a valid observation, and an opportunity to adapt early. Which they have, despite some other questionable ongoing issues.

"the more you respond"

Read my last response, and follow the conversation, they reverted to repeating the same meaningless statements.

"this is some poorly thought out"

They marketed a search service hosted on a website, without disclosing the extension requirement: and further we sink into your missing context; it was user capture.

"you don't understand"

His job title is CEO; is it proper form to question a CEO about deployments, or do we live in world where people have domain expertise in specific fields? Again, you fired from the hip without paying attention to context. Your bias, as I pointed out originally, intellectual dishonesty, and not in the spirit of HN.

If I hadn't made it clear, I'm taking the ding either way. It's your house, but at some point you need to ask yourself if your tao of communication became the site guidelines over time.

Then the actual major issue, that you refuse to acknowledge or engage on: predatory marketing and dark patterns in Show submissions, and your inaction in regards to them. This topic is going to come up again, as it predates this thread. This is a community concern.

Best interpretation is just a mistake, fully respective of workload and personal life. That's great, maybe then you and the community can have a conversation about better processes and ways for us to respond and we can build a solution together. Perfect is an enemy of good just as good enough is an enemy of better. Maintain the house respect.

The only alternative is you're complicit, and intellectually honest reasoning: company policy, employment requirements, etc. This is one of those binary things; the shades of grey begin after the fork.

Disambiguate intent: agreed; now, please. You mentioned damage, and here we are. We can disagree about the tree, and let it be, but I'm also talking about the seemingly untended fire in the forest.

Like I said, I respect the house, I respect the mission, I respect you and the work you do. You quote the show guidelines, they broke the show guidelines: you quote the house guidelines, you break the site guidelines; practice what you proselytize. Do as I say, not as I do is near the peak of intellectual dishonesty. Securing the flock is a shepherds first job responsibility.