Vandalizing HN like this is not cool.
Also you can't claim he ignored your many requests to stop, because you never made a single request to stop what can be interpreted the same way by both of you, he probably thought he followed them. Again, you were using this as manufactured justification to ban him.
Anyone who sincerely wanted to follow the rules at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html would be behaving completely differently. Sincere misunderstandings are generally quite easy to clear up. If someone doesn't sincerely want to follow the site guidelines, they shouldn't be posting here. We're trying for a specific kind of community.
Even the worst case is easy to fix. If someone doesn't want to be banned, they're always welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that they'll follow the rules in the future.
> When someone is routinely dropping lit matches in a dry forest, "he only started one wildfire" is obviously no defense.
He has lots and lots of comments of which only a couple that you didn't like. Absolutely nothing like "routinely dropping lit matches".
One could attempt to make this same argument over virtually any ban ever. There doesn't need to be a reason in my opinion. HN has never allowed freedom to express any opinion you want. A pattern of unpopular opinions tends to result in an automatic hellban, for example.
If somehow he slips and they manage to do it, he will rephrase them next time, make them more vague and more subjective to make sure they don't. Like I saw a warning he gave someone to stop creating new accounts every couple of comments, but then in other warnings he stretched his definition farther and farther to include more comments and more time.
But I figured that was just me being cranky and objectionable lately.
As an aside, can someone explain why a generic "-man" suffix is taken to indicate only the masculine by some people? It's no different than using the masculine for indefinite gender, so why the objections?
And 'a hundred years' is not much of a defense. Women couldn't sign a mortgage in the US in the 70's. I imagine folks defended that too - "Its the way we've always done it."
yeah you're going to need to provide a source for such a ridiculous claim. My grandmother has owned her house for much longer than that.
* edit: all you downvoters need to look at the claim being made instead of bringing up different issues. credit cards are not mortgages. "couldn't sign" is not the same as "needed a cosigner" or "discounted rates". the original claim implies that women could not own houses through a bank loan, which is very much false.
https://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/07/living/sixties-women-5-th...
Specifically there wasn't a law to prevent it AFAIK, but in practice banks denied women lines of credit without their husband's approval as a course of normal business.
you still have not addressed the claim that "women could not sign mortgages in the 70s"
https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?refe...
> Part I discusses the extent of discrimination against women in this field. It concluded that such discrimination is wide-spread and takes two forms. First, lenders discount a working wife's income when she applies with her husband for a home mortgage. Second, lenders are less likely to make a loan to a single woman than to a man.
Maybe not mortgages but this article from 2013: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/25-years-since-women-need_b_4... "25 Years Since Women Needed a Male Co-Signer". (Link should end "b_4164299".)
the original claim was "women couldn't even sign a mortgage in the US in the 70s".
that is a false claim.
Our recently deceased Supreme Court Justice was instrumental in securing that right.
Here's a brief history for the Google-challenged: https://www.directlendingsolutions.com/women_and_credit.htm
there is nothing in your link that says that women couldn't sign a mortgage.
the original claim is that "women couldn't even sign a mortgage in the US until the 70s." this claim is false.
Who cares? Did your ancestors coin the term or something? You can keep writing "salesman" whenever you write things yourself. "Salesperson" doesn't seem at all offensive, and I think it's bizarre to nitpick such a trivial and irrelevant aspect of the article. It reads to me like political virtue-signaling since the article has nothing to do with the gender of the traveling agent.
e: well? he's polynomial