[crazygringo]

You would seem to be the one against the spirit of HN here.

You're calling anyone who might disagree with Canada and agree with Google "bootlicker sorts" (I see no other way to interpret your original comment) and now you're doubling down about people "ready to tow the line for them" and "do the dirty work for them".

That's "grossly counterproductive". Please don't call names or insinuate that commenters are doing "dirty work" here.

You may want to re-read HN guidelines, especially the parts "Edit out swipes", "please reply to the argument instead of calling names", and "Assume good faith."

[llm_nerd]

>You're calling anyone who might disagree with Canada and agree with Google "bootlicker sorts"

Again. Christ. Honest question: How can people so lacking at basic set logic actually function in this field?

If you need to manufacture the position of the person you're "arguing with", take a break from the internet.

Though it's actually telling that a couple of people felt personally attacked by a general statement. I generally referred to people who carry corporate water as bootlickers, and several people took that personally. Maybe that's something to reflect on.

>You may want to re-read HN guidelines

Amazing.

[mrtranscendence]

You say anyone interpreting your earlier statement as being about those who agree with Google lack basic logic, yet you repeatedly say things like this to people defending Google:

> And given that I'm not a pathetic bootlicker, I don't immediately look to rationalize for them.

If you don’t want to imply that you think this about anyone taking Google’s side, maybe use some more nuanced language. Just a suggestion.

Frankly, it seems to me that you want it both ways — to insult people who disagree with you but then hide behind some purely technical sense in which you didn’t.