| > You don't consider condescension and hostility to be "wrong"? Huh? I used "wrong" in the sense, "your argument is incorrect," not, "you shouldn't do that," precisely because your comment explained how you disagreed with me (not why you thought I was being a jerk). In that way, "wrong" and condescension/hostility are orthogonal concepts. > You have to be deliberately obtuse to assume that the parent's statement was intended as absolute fact. It doesn't matter if we're discussing technology, this is a conversation, not a textbook; it's a normal part of discourse to give the other party a little slack and not treat every utterance literally and in absolute terms. I stand by what I said. I don't know what textbooks have to do this. I'm not asking for rigorous debate here. I'm asking for a modicum of clarity in a type of conversation where clarity is important. I agree that we should give each other a little slack. But I also think we should encourage clarity where we think it is necessary. I think it is necessary in this context. > You have to be deliberately obtuse But thanks for the insult all the same. Do you think that is appropriate for HN? |
The "deliberately obtuse" bit was not directed at you specifically, but then if the shoe fits, etc.