I'm assuming you have read the HN guidelines as well before commenting and I am clearly asking the other commenter for evidence to 'substantiate' their very divisive comment [0] which risks (and has already created) a flamewar in this thread. It was quickly flagged earlier by other users for that reason.
From the HN guidelines [1], it clearly states that:
> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Where exactly is the evidence or citations in this comment? [0] There aren't any. It has no evidence and it is not substantiated.
As for the other two:
> Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.
> Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
Clearly the commenter has successfully derailed the discussion to create a flamewar in this thread on top of lacking any evidence in their comment and now the whole thread has gone off topic. Even another commenter in this thread suggested it has gone off-topic.
I'm under the assumption that we've all read the HN guidelines before commenting and as the discussion or topic gets more divisive, even as the guidelines suggests: '...comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less...' [0]. That means these comments must be supported with evidence, which is what I have asked for from the start. So I ask once again:
Where exactly is the evidence or citations in the aforementioned comment that I have highlighted? [1]
Since the start of my replies, it has still not been substantiated and no evidence has been presented to support it.
My question remains unanswered and ignored from the very start even before you replied and the aforementioned comment [0] still needs to be supported with evidence, which is why I am asking otherwise it remains unsubstantiated.
Unless you think there is ANY evidence in it? So far in this thread I have asked for it many times and no-one can give a simple citation to support it. Maybe you can answer the following question?
Where exactly is the evidence or citations in the aforementioned comment that I have highlighted? [0]
If there is no evidence to a claim or a statement then it can be safely dismissed as baseless and it most certainly qualifies as off-topic divisive flame-bait which breaks the HN guidelines [1].
Are.... you actually reading my comments? Do you think you could actually read it? I am legitimately not sure if you are a bot, because you aren't actually directly responding to anything that I said.
But I'll summarize once again.
-------
My statement is about you. I am talking about how when you act this way (and by this way I mean, just posting links at someone, over and over again), not someone else, you come across as pretty bad faith.
-------
Do you understand what I just said? Do you understand the problem?
Or are you just going to copy paste the same thing again, without actually reading my post?
I am trying to talk about you here, because you are the one responding. And I don't think you quite understand how you come across, or the problem with your behavior here.
> Are.... you actually reading my comments? Do you think you could actually read it? I am legitimately not sure if you are a bot, because you aren't actually directly responding to anything that I said.
This isn't about me and that is irrelevant to the entire discussion. Now you resort to name calling me a bot just because I am asking for evidence?
From the very start and even before your replies, I am simply asking the user to substantiate their comment with citations because it lacks evidence and such unsubstantiated comments are clearly against the HN guidelines and I already reminded the user repeatedly. I'm not the only one who brought up the guidelines here on this thread.
That is it. There is nothing bad faith about asking for evidence. Unless you can substantiate it for them: Where is the evidence or sources to back up the baseless claims in [0]?
The fact that neither of you can simply cite your own claims leads me to think that you both knew you haven't read the HN guidelines after all and yet you continue to post here as if you have read them. Clearly you both haven't.
How is it that hard to comprehend given that so far none of you are able to even answer it and yet you try hard to turn this discussion about me because you have ZERO evidence to substantiate the claims in [0]. Therefore it can be dismissed as baseless flame-bait.
I appreciate you sticking up for me here, but you gotta let it be. They won’t drop it as long as you play ball with them and I’m sure dang has enough on his plate as it is. I think it’s pretty clear to any observers which of us is breaking the site guidelines.
> I appreciate you sticking up for me here, but you gotta let it be. They won’t drop it as long as you play ball with them
Well, its not about you per se. Instead it is that I am consistently disappointed, in how impossible it is to get a bad faith actor to drop the act.
I have had similar such conversations, with quite literally hundreds of people, on various social media platforms, and I can only think of maybe 1 single time, that I got the bad faith actor to drop it.
Even this whole "copy paste the same answer and don't respond to anything that the other person is saying" is one such bad faith tactic, that comes up often enough that it is a consistent pattern.
What's beyond disappointing and typical of users and threads like this is that such baseless flame-bait comments are left unsubstantiated even after asking them to give some citations. Otherwise the discussion gets into an off-topic flamewar. This can be easily prevented with simple EVIDENCE as already explained by the HN guidelines.
They know they haven't read the guidelines, so I and another commenter just reminded them. There is nothing wrong with admitting that you haven't read them and also admitting you have no sources to your claims is it?
