[refulgentis]

I'm shaking my head over here. Never thought I'd hear people complaining they got a link to an article instead of Wikipedia. I literally can't believe it. This is a good article and its bone-headed for several obvious reasons to argue it should be replaced by a wikpedia article. Let's go with the most utilitarian: If this was just a site for entity-name-matching to wikipedia articles, it wouldn't be very popular.

[andrewflnr]

> entity-name-matching to wikipedia articles

I thought I made it clear that this was a strawman. Literally no one is proposing that. If you think OP is good actually, feel free to argue that on its own grounds.

[refulgentis]

Let's roll back the entire tape and see where you said its a strawman and you're not actually proposing that and its all theoratical.

>> Well yeah, but you can just post the wiki article if that's better. HN is usually cool with that.

>> If you want to post about a random topic, and Wikipedia is better than the random blog where you encountered the topic, you should prefer to post the Wikipedia article. This is a specific case of "prefer to post higher-quality pages", which I hope is not controversial.

I'm sorry, there's nothing about it being a strawman and that you're not actually proposing it.

In fact, its quite easy to read the opposite, you say "This is a specific case of prefer to post higher-quality pages" and "Wikipedia is better than the random blog where you encountered the topic"

You got out over your skis and went too far. Maybe you spoke sloppily and were just speaking completely theoratically about an abstract example and forgot to mention that. Its fine, but I'd prefer you didn't pretend you made clear this was all an abstract intellectual exercise and you liked the article.

[andrewflnr]

I was speaking largely abstractly, and I didn't forget to mention it; I, for one, know what "if" means. I don't have a strong opinion on either specific article.

[refulgentis]

Your choices were "this guy doesn't know what if means" "he's lying / trolling" or "it wasn't clear". I understand as a fellow human why you went with A, but, beyond that, not quite what I'm used to on HN, for obvious reasons.

[andrewflnr]

You continue to blatantly misconstrue my comments.

[refulgentis]

What was misconstrued? Direct quote: "I, for one, know what if means".

As far as the rest, I understand why you're upset. Forgive me, the first comment in the thread giving a Wikipedia link they wanted posted instead threw me off. I understand now you were speaking generally that it was fine to submit Wikipedia articles. I'm sorry I bothered you so much, I must have went way too far for you.

Maybe I should just accept that "I, for one" doesn't mean you're implying someone else in the thread doesn't know what if means. You're just saying you know what if means, which is certainly uncontroverstial! I'd never accuse you of not knowing it :)