There's a world of difference between self-reflection and self-congratulation, seldom noticed by those practising the latter.

"The people here are smart"

The people here believe they are smart. Some are correct, others are not.

Just because someone is wrong, it doesn't mean they aren't smart.

But at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter to me what people on here think of themselves and others as long they can articulate their opinions in an intelligent and reasonable manner.

"Just because someone is wrong, it doesn't mean they aren't smart"

Indeed, just as being right doesn't mean they are smart - but the point I'm making is that HN users cover a range of cleverness, and that self-estimation is pointless (Dunning-Kroger syndrome). Saying "only joke if you're clever" is all but identical to saying "anyone can joke".

Some people enjoy jokes regardless of topic. Please tolerate.

Jokes add noise, preventing the signal of regular discussion. The limited tolerance of jokes here isn't random, it's an effort to protect the importance and screen real estate of substantive discussion.

Limited tolerance is the key. Zero tolerance would be equally as bad as complete tolerance, IMHO.

Thinking something and saying it are two different things. Explaining this fact necessitates saying it, but we're in a different context to the original. I see no insincerity in that.

"I never should should have said it, whether I still believe it to be true or not" might have been better, but I think it's presumptive to assign it to insincerity.

You could say the same for "smacks of x" being proceeded by the word "respectfully" - why say "smacks of" with its derisory connotations, when you could say "seems"?

The trouble with humour on HN is that HN is full of other people.

I think these are the one-liners that HN is not a fan of.

Indeed, but the first one was a serious point, presented tongue-in-cheek. People seeing it as just a one-liner are missing something, however slight.

(The second was just a instantly-typed reaction which should have been an edit. Much grovellings to all for replying by mistake.)

> The second was just a instantly-typed reaction which should have been an edit

Honestly, it's an annoying post, and it would be an annoying edit. "OMG WHY ARE PEOPLE DOWNMODDING ME?!" is just really annoying no matter where you put it.

Think about it. How could it possibly inform anyone of anything? "Oh, I never would have noticed that that comment was being down voted if its poster hadn't pointed it out."

No, no, no - down-vote away, be my guest. I was LOLing at the irony of it. Much as I'm doing now about this one, in fact.

I believe :O is the appropriate response.

Bindun', I'm afraid: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=609893

I like to read more than just the title before I decide whether or not to vote. When I get back, the left is easier because I don't have to read the title again.

Indeed, I commented it myself a few days ago.

'Distraction from distraction' is my take - don't worry about everything else in your head, just open notepad and start making notes on whatever it is you're trying to put off. You'll forget the rest soon enough :)

That's different. They still want the cigarette itself, they just don't want to be someone who wants cigarettes, if you see what I mean. The 'really caring' about stopping applies to a wider scope than the single cigarette you'd have to decline in order to start quitting.