> I mean, you kind of asked for a response from mods by asking me to speak to the guidelines
I was requesting that you literally quote the relevant passage(s) from the guidelines or from other sources, which is simply copy and paste, not speaking for anyone.
You claimed that something was in the guidelines, but I read the guidelines and didn't find the thing you claimed, so direct quotes would seem to be the natural next step, not emailing the moderators, which feels like overkill.
> I don't think it's fair to call what I originally said an accusation per se, because I don't think it's necessarily up for debate what I was reminded of, as I am an authority on my own state of mind.
You can be reminded of anything you like, in your own mind. When you publish it, as a reply to me, it becomes for all practical purposes an accusation. I have thoughts about various people, including you, that I refrain from publishing.
> You yourself said you weren't finding it very entertaining, which to me seemed sarcastic and flippant
No, I was quite honest and sincere, about that and about the purpose of HN itself. The HN guidelines say that on-topic is "Anything that good hackers would find interesting", "anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity." That's more or less entertainment. Highbrow, perhaps, but still entertainment.
> If users and mods acknowledge your point as being worth discussing, yet disagree with your desired course of action, where would you like this conversation to go from here?
I understand disagreement, which is fine. I also understand that summaries are subjective (which I also think is fine). What I did not understand was your comments about "bad actors", "charlatans", and "sophists". This is a threat model that does not seem very applicable or realistic in the context.
> I mean, you kind of asked for a response from mods by asking me to speak to the guidelines
I was requesting that you literally quote the relevant passage(s) from the guidelines or from other sources, which is simply copy and paste, not speaking for anyone.
You claimed that something was in the guidelines, but I read the guidelines and didn't find the thing you claimed, so direct quotes would seem to be the natural next step, not emailing the moderators, which feels like overkill.
> I don't think it's fair to call what I originally said an accusation per se, because I don't think it's necessarily up for debate what I was reminded of, as I am an authority on my own state of mind.
You can be reminded of anything you like, in your own mind. When you publish it, as a reply to me, it becomes for all practical purposes an accusation. I have thoughts about various people, including you, that I refrain from publishing.
> You yourself said you weren't finding it very entertaining, which to me seemed sarcastic and flippant
No, I was quite honest and sincere, about that and about the purpose of HN itself. The HN guidelines say that on-topic is "Anything that good hackers would find interesting", "anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity." That's more or less entertainment. Highbrow, perhaps, but still entertainment.
> If users and mods acknowledge your point as being worth discussing, yet disagree with your desired course of action, where would you like this conversation to go from here?
I understand disagreement, which is fine. I also understand that summaries are subjective (which I also think is fine). What I did not understand was your comments about "bad actors", "charlatans", and "sophists". This is a threat model that does not seem very applicable or realistic in the context.
[flagged]