Indeed it does. And as I very openly stated, there's a time and place to discuss what you've raised as well! Even on this very post.
> I'm not trying to control.
Numerous times, you admonished me and the other poster for not bringing value to the conversation because it didn't include points that you personally find most important. You effectively communicated "If you don't include what I personally deem to be most relevant and illuminating, you should check yourself".
If that's not trying to control, I don't know what is.
> If you find yourself in a conversation you're not having, one option is to leave.
Another comment that cuts both ways. I should remind you that you joined the conversation you weren't having, only to tell someone else how they should change what they were discussing.
> in a markedly uninteresting and unilluminating direction
Perhaps to you. Again, you seem to only consider the conversation relative to your own point of view, and that continues even in this conclusion.
I do intend to leave this thread, because it’s devolved into something that doesn’t really align with the spirit of HN.
Again, a very peculiar and one-sided definition of "control" here.
I don't think this discussion deserves any further attention from me.
Cheers.
That sword cuts both ways.
I'm not trying to control. I am trying to shine a light on the issue in an area that seems to be pervasively underilluminated.
You're the one who's lashed out several times now against that. If that's not an attempt at control, I don't know what it is.
If you find yourself in a conversation you're not having, one option is to leave.
Another is to see if that conversation might be one that you would benefit from.
That said, someone's hijacked this thread from a direct discussion of the phenonomenon originally at hand to several levels of meta, and in a markedly uninteresting and unilluminating direction.