[philwelch]

The OP was about a guy who cheats at marathons. The comment was about a verbal gaffe by a recently nominated and controversial Vice-Presidential candidate.

I'm not sure about your countrymen, but Americans have an annoying way of derailing every conversation and forum into petty, non-sequitur, assume-bad-faith attacks on politicians of the opposing party in a way that really adds nothing to the discourse. It's not that the comment wouldn't have bothered me if it hadn't been about a politician; it's that the comment wouldn't have even been made if it wasn't about a politician. There's this obsession with proving that politicians of the opposing party are terrible human beings in every possible way (so that we may feel righteous in our cause) instead of actually discussing things that matter. The end result is a sequence of catty remarks that only convince people who already agree with you, which stops any productive dialogue before it starts. It's the single most destructive thing about the American political culture.

HN is one of my few remaining refuges from that bullshit. If everyone else is suddenly fine with it, maybe it is time for me to leave.

[emini_guy]

First of all, it's a bit arrogant, to say the least, to make insinuations about someone's intentions, especially if you are such a big champion of non-BS contributions : I am an independent so I have no dog in this political fight and my comment had nothing to do with anyone's political affiliation. Second, I am amused that you call it "verbal gaffe." If you want to brag about your accomplishments, you better make sure you checked your data well or else you may end up looking incompetent at the very best. If you are not sure, say so, or simply abstain from bragging. That's what I expect from a professional or anyone (who should be) concerned about his or her integrity, and Mr. Ryan is a professional politician, so I see no reason to cut him any slack. You have a high threshold of tolerance for BS when it comes to politicians, it appears, but I am afraid it comes with the price of seeing BS where it's not.

My comment had to do with the integrity (be it professional or personal), which is the real issue of this thread and not some "guy who cheats at marathons" and it was your comments that turned it into some sort of political issue, and made you sound like an apologist for Mr. Ryan.

This piece ("it's that the comment wouldn't have even been made if it wasn't about a politician.") is not even wrong. What are you God? You think you know everything?

You made lame straw man insinuations that would offend anyone of normal IQ and then you hurry to close with "maybe it is time for me to leave" as if you wanted to prove yourself right and the issue were closed. But you are still wrong because your assumptions were never right. Sounds like a typical political "logic" to me, based on insinuations, twisting facts, and pandering to the audience. Yes, I too would like to see this place free "from that bullshit," because that's the real BS.

[philwelch]

The point isn't my tolerance or intolerance towards Mr. Ryan's statements. It's that loosely-relevant political pot-shots aren't really considered valuable comments on HN. I just thought it would be helpful to tell you why your comments weren't being received well. I'm sorry it didn't come across that way.

For what it's worth, even if it was Joe Biden, Justin Bieber, or Mark Zuckerberg who lied about running a sub-3-hour marathon, it still would have been a bad comment and I still would have made a similar response.

[nacker]

Well, it appears that other people received the comment well. I thought it was fair and relevant. However, it is tedious to read threads that have been hijacked by this kind of sniping.

[lotharbot]

Dude has a net karma score of -2. That's after all the upvotes from whoever "thought it was fair and relevant". Since upvotes are easier to come by than downvotes (not everyone can downvote), this suggests the comment wasn't received well. Because philwelch is exactly right -- it simply doesn't add to the discussion.

It may appear that people are mostly siding with you because nobody else has verbalized support for philwelch. That's because we HN veterans don't generally post "me-too" opinions, we just quietly upvote the guy who's right and downvote the guy who's wrong. In this case, I've chosen to break the silence because you seem like you might be willing to learn HN cultural norms.

Here on HN, we ask that you not take cheap shots at politicians, religions, etc. -- even those we really don't like. It makes for boring reading. Instead, make comments that other people will come away from thinking "I learned something valuable from that".

[philwelch]

Does it? It got the guy enough negative karma that he's now auto-hellbanned....

[rprasad]

Claiming to run a sub-3 hour marathon was not a verbal gaffe; it was a deliberate statement intended to fortify his image as an athletic over-achiever. The candidate claimed it was a "verbal gaffe" only after being confronted with its falsity.

[philwelch]

Maybe that's true. I don't really care; it's beside the point.

[rprasad]

The point was that it was cited as an example of similar fraudulent claims of athletic prowress, which is directly relevant to the linked article. Whether the article itself is pertinent to HN is beside the point; emmi_guy's comment was pertinent to the discussion of the article.

[philwelch]

...Not really, no.

Look, I was trying to be helpful. If you want to pick a fight, go somewhere else.