I'll unhappily dignify this comment. Obviously, the reason is that my point was that even someone who was ambivalent about FISA process should still have a problem with Google giving up their keys.

I don't know what you thought my "true colors" were, but if you thought they included an unwillingness to tell the authors of comments like these to go fuck themselves, now you know.

The fu comment and how it's tolerated on HN provides a true window into how the real world works.

And why people on the outside never know the true story of why someone in power (say the government) or PG does what they do. Which is why sometimes it seems wrong and doesn't make any sense or it seems there is an easy alternative.

They only know what they read about it or what they are told or what they understand or have been educated about.

You say something that almost certainly would get a user with lower karma hellbanned but it's totally tolerated.

Now a user who is new to HN may wonder why you can get away with that and then feel that it's ok for them to do the same.

PG (or whoever has hellbanning powers) decides that you are either to big to fail or the benefit that you provide to the community outweighs whatever detriment a comment like this poses by letting you continue on HN saying things like that. You most likely don't even get a warning from the cop. "Ok sarge I'll tone it down".

It's like being tenured or something in academia.

I love this stuff. I like the fact that at least some people on HN can say whatever they want (the freedom of speech we are all supposed to have) without fear of either downvotes or being banned from HN.

And while that doesn't mean I want to have a bunch of FU or abusive language thrown about (which would almost certainly detract and make me leave) it is an illustration of the power of the primadonna in organizations.

(By the way Steve Blank was totally like this at the company that I worked with him at. Untouchable.)

He used swearwords, but that's a superficial test. The provocation was worse-- the casual assumption of lack of integrity, after this whole useless subthread started with someone deliberately misinterpreting his use of "ambivalent" and then trying to pull the if-you're-not-with-us-you're-against-us trick. No real discussion can follow such a reply.

You should all go work on something productive.

You may be over-thinking this a little.

That's what I do. While other people are spending time over-thinking some sport on tv I am over-thinking things that put money in my pocket.

This is practice for that over-thinking.

Ok. I think you're unlikely to get hellbanned for saying anything I've said, too.

This has more to do with the weirdness of the hellbanning system, which is a whole other can of worms.

Ugh. No need to be so condescending. Thanks for deigning to respond though.

> Obviously, ...

There's nothing obvious about it. Why do you think your ambivalence about the FISA process is germane to the discussion we should be having? You should be aware that it'll trigger an off-topic response and derail the discussion as you see it has done.

> comments like these ...

The person was only (in a bit of a soap opera-ish way I will acknowledge) suggesting that you maybe should give reevaluating your position a try. Is that so unconscionable?

I intend no hostility towards you. I appreciate your energy and your knowledge and insights. Now getting back to the issue at hand, dang them pesky spooks!