[NilMostChill]

None of what i said had anything to do with the nature of the attack, personal or otherwise.

The author seems to be taking it a bit personally but they don't seem to be implying an attack targeted to them exclusively as much as an attack that they experienced personally but it could be either i suppose.

The blog post was, "this is a thing that happened, followed by another thing i think was related, i am upset, here is why"

Your response was "this is common, suck it up"

The post itself doesn't mention any sort of persecution or targeted attack.

What you said was dismissive and condescending, being technically correct about things that are unrelated doesn't negate that.

[luckylion]

> A couple of days ago, someone (or some entity) tried to attack this website. They sent hundreds of thousands of requests, attempting to inject code into the site. [...] But then they changed strategy. They began downloading every single sound file, again and again.

The author definitely saw it as a targeted attack that, when it failed, caused the attacker to switch tactics to intentionally cause harm.

And it's not "this is common, suck it up", it's "this is common, it's not about you personally, nobody is out to get YOU". It's like when you first receive spam mails and didn't know what that was. It's easy to think it's just someone messing with you, trying to annoy you. But it's really not, it's lots of people sending out millions of messages, and some of those finding their way into your mailbox.

It helps classify what happens. It's a very different situation when your car has been keyed and you know that it happened to every car on your street (super likely to be random vandalism) vs that is happened to only your car (much more likely that somebody is out to get you). Your behavior changes in response to whether something is random vs intentional.

That's why it's important to help people understand when things aren't intentional (as in "they targeted _that_ website specifically" vs "they target all the sites, and today their scanner arrived at domains starting with myno"; of course they still intentionally ran that script).

[NilMostChill]

> The author definitely saw it as a targeted attack that, when it failed, caused the attacker to switch tactics to intentionally cause harm.

Saying "someone or something" is generic and also accurate it doesn't explicitly imply a specific person or targeting, though I'll concede it could be interpreted that way.

As interesting a side conversation as this is it isn't my original point.

As i said in my original reply:

> It being common doesn't mean it's OK, it also doesn't mean people aren't allowed to be upset by it.

> "You probably need to calm down a bit" is dismissive and condescending.

It's entirely possible to explain context to someone without being dismissive of their feelings on the subject.