Re:Intel's New Low: Commissioning Misleading Core I9-9900K B...
by detaro on Tuesday October 09, 2018 @11:20AM
(#18176630)
The last line of your comment is wholly unecessary (and explicitly not allowed on HN)
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Intel's New Low: Commissioning Misleading Core I9-9900K B...
by holtalanm on Tuesday October 09, 2018 @12:23PM
(#18177282)
so we can't call someone out who apparently didn't even watch the linked content, while still posting a comment that criticizes the content?
I'm curious about where in the rules it says we shouldn't call someone out on their BS.
Re:Intel's New Low: Commissioning Misleading Core I9-9900K B...
by stagger87 on Tuesday October 09, 2018 @12:27PM
(#18177316)
From the guidelines
"Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that.""
Re:Intel's New Low: Commissioning Misleading Core I9-9900K B...
by holtalanm on Tuesday October 09, 2018 @01:00PM
(#18177658)
I don't want to split hairs here, but the linked content is not an article. I understand the spirit of it, but it technically does not apply here.
Re:Intel's New Low: Commissioning Misleading Core I9-9900K B...
by asr on Thursday October 11, 2018 @10:16AM
(#18193705)
Upvoted because you are correct that I didn't watch the video (and I usually hate commenters who don't look at the linked content so I get you). But I can't just start watching videos at work... and I posted my comment under a link to the related article, so I think it was fair to comment after reading the article but not watching the video.
I am interested to see your original comment if you want to repost (including whatever caused it to be flagged if you like, now that this thread is old I doubt anyone will care/notice).