← Back to context Comment by dang 8 months ago We merged that thread hither since the submission was more about the significant new information. 2 comments dang Reply account42 8 months ago Odd choice to move the discussion from a submission of the official website to one about a blog by an (afaict) unrelated pundit. dang 8 months ago Yes, normally we'd do the opposite (especially when the article isn't particularly good), but in this case it was easier to trace the significant new information this way.
account42 8 months ago Odd choice to move the discussion from a submission of the official website to one about a blog by an (afaict) unrelated pundit. dang 8 months ago Yes, normally we'd do the opposite (especially when the article isn't particularly good), but in this case it was easier to trace the significant new information this way.
dang 8 months ago Yes, normally we'd do the opposite (especially when the article isn't particularly good), but in this case it was easier to trace the significant new information this way.
Odd choice to move the discussion from a submission of the official website to one about a blog by an (afaict) unrelated pundit.
Yes, normally we'd do the opposite (especially when the article isn't particularly good), but in this case it was easier to trace the significant new information this way.