I made no attack in my comment and I don't appreciate the insinuation.
> People should be allowed to say
Well, you're not going to find disagreement on that area from me; everyone is, or should be, indeed allowed to say anything. As I understood it, you were arguing otherwise.
> We are allowed to say [...] even if we don't have the exact step by step plan on how to implement it that we can share on HN.
And other people are similarly allowed to argue with you on anything you might say if they so choose. That's the point of a free exchange of ideas, I think.
> And sacrificing my privacy doesn't have to mean that it's open to public
But... Something is either public or it's private....
Anyhow, not only you suggested that I was attacking you for no reason, but you also brought up "wars" and "hunger" and I don't particularly understand why, and this now seems like an attempt at equivocation. Hopefully I'm just misinterpreting, but I don't feel like you are trying to argue in good faith.
> People should be allowed to say
Well, you're not going to find disagreement on that area from me; everyone is, or should be, indeed allowed to say anything. As I understood it, you were arguing otherwise.
> We are allowed to say [...] even if we don't have the exact step by step plan on how to implement it that we can share on HN.
And other people are similarly allowed to argue with you on anything you might say if they so choose. That's the point of a free exchange of ideas, I think.
> And sacrificing my privacy doesn't have to mean that it's open to public
But... Something is either public or it's private....
Anyhow, not only you suggested that I was attacking you for no reason, but you also brought up "wars" and "hunger" and I don't particularly understand why, and this now seems like an attempt at equivocation. Hopefully I'm just misinterpreting, but I don't feel like you are trying to argue in good faith.