Re:The unnecessary demise of Barnes and Noble
by mrep on Friday February 16, 2018 @08:53PM
(#16398381)
> This breaks the HN guidelines in two ways. First, it's uncivil.
Did you read my other responses because I 100% agree with him. I was just laughing because he made a textbook economic argument but didn't actually mention economics.
> "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."
What? I am 100% in agreement with OP. What argument do you think I am making?
Re:The unnecessary demise of Barnes and Noble
by dang on Saturday February 17, 2018 @02:18PM
(#16402207)
Possibly I misunderstood you, in which case I'm sorry. We often have to guess at what people meant in their comments. On the other hand, we're no different from other readers in that respect, so if I guessed wrong, almost certainly others did too.
This breaks the HN guidelines in two ways. First, it's uncivil. Second, it falls far short of this:
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."
Could you please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow those rules when commenting here? It does take an effort, but it's an effort everyone needs to make if we're to succeed in having a bit higher quality here than internet median.