It's more productive to ask "Do you have a source to support your claims?" rather than "Why are you speaking?"

HN allows points of view from all people, qualified or not. If their arguments are valid and persuasive, the ideas are usually accepted. If it's mistaken or naive, they're typically rejected. This doesn't happen all the time, and often you have to articulate ideas far more carefully than in the old days, but it works pretty well. And the cornerstone of this system is for anyone to be able to say anything.

So I agree with how Hacker News works, at least how you described it, that's been my experience as well and it's cool that you don't have to have a PhD in whatever to have an opinion about whatever. On the other hand, are we sure that there are not people here who are paid by Monsanto to push their agenda? I'm not saying that's the case here but I don't know. So I asked because it felt weird to me. I'll admit I was egged on a bit by some people who sent me private mail, they didn't want the down votes but they wanted to know as well. So I asked, down votes or no down votes, I'm not going to be defined by some pile of points (as much as I appreciate how they generally filter the content here pretty nicely).

On the personal history, is that really true? Because when I was talking about some stuff I've done here someone said I really ought to put my full name in my profile so people can go learn who I am and what I've done. So I did. I thought that was why you put your name in your profile. All I did was copy his name from his profile to duckduckgo and hit return. If doing that is a no-no that's news to me.

What you may not do here is use insinuations about shillage as a rhetorical wedge in public HN threads.

Regarding whether someone is being paid, two points:

1. Accusing someone of being a shill without any hard evidence is strictly against the rules. If you have evidence, it's usually best to send it to [email protected], who will take it seriously. But try not to waste their time with spurious or coincidental connections.

2. tptacek isn't being paid by Monsanto. (Contrary to belief, Matasano wasn't a Monsanto subsidiary.)

And as for "posting it online for all to see", umm, it's right there in the search results. In the titles, you don't even have to click down one level. I didn't post that stuff, he did when he joined linkedin and all the other social/business stuff. The whole point of all that stuff is to advertise who you are and what you can do. All I did was say what his advertised career is and what his age is, something that any of us can get in 10 seconds. If that is crossing some line, that's a pretty arbitrary and pointless line. You are making it sound like I found his social security number and posted it and I did no such thing.

This all could have been a non issue if tptacek did what most people would have done and said "I'm a nerd and I like reading papers about this stuff" or "my background includes this stuff". But he didn't, and hasn't, and that still feels weird to me. People who are into stuff typically love talking about it and that includes talking about why they love it, how they learned it, who they learned it from, etc.

Something felt off. So I asked. If I, a software/hardware guy, was making claims that global warming isn't a thing someone would eventually ask how I knew that. This is exactly like that. And he hasn't answered that question. He could totally shut this whole thread down with a simple answer to a simple question. It's sort of strange he hasn't. I don't get it.

Whatever, I gotta go, my stupid puppy is trying to eat my chickens.

Insinuating that someone is a paid shill isn't allowed on HN. I know it seems harmless, but it's been a recurring problematic theme for years.

The problem is that every time a shill insinuation comes up, there's almost no evidence. That leaves an unproductive conversation that goes nowhere but down.

I know how frustrating it is to be the target of downvotes and flags, but it's a reaction to a long history of similar types of comments leading in negative directions. It's kept HN discussions interesting, so typically it's an asset for the site.

Which neither you, his buddy I'm guessing, or he, has answered. Why the heck not?

Whatever. I've taken this up with [email protected] and I'm so done with this. I'm just about done with hackernews over this thread. It's disgusting that it has gone this far, this is not what learning from each other or seeking the truth looks like, I have no desire to keep going if hackernews is going to look like Fox News.

I came here to learn from the people here. This is not that. As my Dutch grandmother would say, you should be ashamed, you can do better.

I meant to address your questions directly and in detail, but apparently I missed the mark. The usual convention is to ignore threads like these, both to avoid misunderstandings like this and to keep off-topic threads short. I didn't want to just leave you wondering, hence the replies.

Can you see why this is a huge red flag? So much drama and no "I've got a clue".

I'd love it if you or your buddy just shut me down with a huge pile of knowledge.

Well? Show us. Shut me down.