People can be mistaken or misinformed. They could just be wrong. You could just be wrong. On HN, you can't start yelling 'liar!' at random internet strangers, that's just how the site works or else it wouldn't. If you think a comment is particularly bad you can downvote it, flag it or email the site moderators about it at [email protected] This is all in https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html

I didn't "start yelling liar".

I observed they were doing so, and provided evidence that their claims were lies.

If I observe you are a dunderhead, it's still namecalling and an insult even if I believe the observation is factual. Lots of mod commentary about it (beside being the the site guidelines)

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

Yes , what you're doing there is name-calling and a direct insult. You might note that I used a verb, not a noun. I literally described the action the person I was responding to took

It's akin to saying "he's talking nonsense" when someone is just putting random syllables after each other.

If that is insulting, than the fact he took the action is the insult, not my pointing it out.

That's not how insults work and it's definitely not how HN works. You can't start telling people you disagree with that they are lying, out of nowhere. It's not some convoluted or difficult guideline, it's not 'akin to' your example, it's just plain name calling. Don't do it here, please.

You have not observed anything nor providing any evidence of anything. You are insulting me by calling me names and implying that I am in bad faith (You did not write that I was "wrong", you wrote that I was "lying"), and those were your very first words to me.

I have only expressed my opinion based on what I have read [1], including the mailing list. The very fact that the whole affair is causing so much waves suggests that the communication has been poor. You are free to disagree but don't be a dick about it.

[1] https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/23/linus_torvalds_affirm...

> the communication should have focused on that (legal sanctions

The communication of the removal is literally what I quoted:

Remove some entries due to various compliance requirements. They can come back in the future if sufficient documentation is provided

Under this fact, I can only conclude what my initial sentence was, which is observing that "you're lying", which you were.