| HN Mirror

Can you explain how [4] breaks guidelines, please?

I can see how [1]-[3] might appear contentious, at a very casual glance - but the wording I used in [4] was on its own terms entirely innocuous.

All I'm saying is, basically -- "OK, so that's your position then" (while correctly and relevantly noting also, as you will confirm from the comment history, that they were conspicuously evasive in providing a straightforward answer up until that point).

The follow-up question about the abducted minors (in case you were wondering about that) was entirely legitimate and relevant, as it's one of the many (rather awful and nasty) complications of the conflict that people who think there's an easy "deal" involving territory that just be cut to end this thing typically aren't thinking of (because by and large they aren't following the situation too closely anyway).

They didn't have to answer it of course, but there was nothing uncivil about the question in itself, or my phrasing of it.

Also, you'll note that I'm very carefully and diplomatically defusing their completely gratuitous and uncivil provocation ("I'm not your bitch"), which I notice you did not flag or call out the user on, even though this (in addition to "Are we 12 year olds?", and calling it a "BS question" when it was the exact opposite) was obviously way more inflammatory than any possible reading of my posting.

In this case, you should be calling out the other user for their needlessly inflammatory rhetoric here -- not me, for my far more centered and non-escalatory response.

[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41123755