Item — HN Reader

We are not supposed to use past posting as proof on HN, we are supposed to respond to what was said. One of those unwritten rules which most get. Do you really believe that I can't find something in all of your posting history that does not conflict with what you say here?

Edit: Your editing your original post proves my point.

1 comments

I perfectly well trust that you can. In this instance, there is ample proof that the poster does not adhere to HN's submission guidelines. If that's an uncouth judgement, please exercise the downvote.

Why did you edit your post? It had some worth, but you edited into something of no worth, limp partisan bullshit.

I clicked into OP's submission history and remembered that they were not a good-faith user, so it was more intellectually honest to cut to the chase.

So you decided to act in bad faith to make my response look like bad faith?

>Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

I don't believe I did. Your first comment narrowly avoided my original draft, and the subsequent edit wasn't related to your disagreement.

I don't consider it a tacit rule that submission history is off-limits. dang can clearly make it private if that's a concern, but cross-referencing users to keep them honest is an ordinary forum tactic for determining good-faith. It's beneficial to moderators when they're judging patterns of behavior, and it's beneficial to users for the same purpose.

You're not going to bully me into editing my original post back, and I definitely can't delete it once you leave a comment below it complaining. I think my stance was principled and I'm willing to hear you out if you think that my edited accusation is off-base. Otherwise, we have nothing constructive to discuss here.

Your edit of your original post happened after my second reply to you, hence my edit of my second reply and not my first. Using old posts as proof is against the rules, it is part of the rule I quoted, the strongest interpretation is not the one which requires you to dig through a posters history. The mods will call you out on this if they see you doing such things.

I am not trying to bully you into anything, I only asked because I found it curious. But your original post reflects better on you than your edit does. OPs posting history could just as easily prove that they never read the submission guidelines, which is fairly common; so, they made this thread to ask why and a quick glance at their posting history strongly suggests they never read the submission guidelines.