top | item 24826177

(no title)

Kednicma | 5 years ago

"guy" comes from the ancient Roman names "Gaius" and "Gaia". Note carefully how the one name had two gendered forms since ancient Latin is gendered.

As a Lojban speaker, it is incredibly tiring to listen to English-only speakers whine about how gendered their language is. You want everybody to change how they talk, but still talk English; what a half-measure!

There is no such thing as a good person. Your misandry blinds you to this fact.

discuss

order

dang|5 years ago

This comment breaks the site guidelines badly. Ideological flamebait, name-calling, and (especially) personal attacks will get you banned here. We've had to warn you before. Would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting, which means editing out any swipes that make it into your comments?

On the other hand, I just looked at your recent comment history and am pleased to see a lot of mostly substantive comments there. Thank you for that. If you'd just be careful to take out the swipes (as in the last paragraph of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24813852), the problem would be solved. We'd appreciate that.

p.s. Your etymological claim is incorrect according to Etymonline: https://www.etymonline.com/word/guy#etymonline_v_14401

Kednicma|5 years ago

You are slightly improving as a person. I did not expect that. To respect your personal growth, I'll retire this account.

In the case example that you linked, I find it disappointing that you still do not read entire threads. The original article is a Wikipedia article with many authors. The original comment, which critiques either Wikipedia or Baumol & Bowen's original study, includes the summary:

> So - this is simply a bad, ignorant example. It's not just wrong, it's flagrantly, wildly, outrageously misinformed, and is based on an almost total lack of insight into an industry that is worth $146 million a year - of which around $90 million is income from streaming.

My comment concludes with the line:

> This is a bad, ignorant example. Not just wrong, but flagrantly, wildly, outrageously misinformed.

I understand that you object to when we (those who know of the Prime Directive) hold a mirror up to HN. It is embarrassing to imagine how other people must see us, knowing how we see other people. However, that does not mean that we should stop looking at ourselves in the mirror.

Oh, and finally, have a happy Halloween.