> "I mean he can lie right?"

If you're not willing to engage with him in good faith, I have a hard time understanding why you’re commenting in this thread. Have a good evening.

Giving someone with a conflict of interest good faith is extremely unwise. I advise even for you never to do it.

In essence you can say my faith in him is 50% not 100% as good faith seems to imply. So with 50% faith, engagement is still has value. I never met a person who never lied, so every single person I've ever talked to in my life I technically never had 100% good faith towards. I expect everyone to lie and be untrustworthy at some point. For some people it's big things, for other people it's minor white lies. For someone with a conflict of interest I'd be more careful.

Additionally even someone completely untrustworthy can still be communicated with. You can still glean information from such a person by observing his actions. For example if dang censors this thread by deleting the whole thing, that would say a lot. Him not deleting the thread also says a lot.

What I don't understand about you is how you can say you don't "understand" something and then suddenly say "good evening" as if you're leaving. Wouldn't the goal be for you to "stay" and "understand" Or is the goal simply to debate and win or leave if you can't win?

So instead of good faith conversation, you just opted for conspiracy babble?

No instead of blind faith I choose to not trust someone with a conflict of interest. You choose to give him your blind faith and call any form of doubt a conspiracy bubble.

You literally ignore the basic facts that this thread wasn't deleted/flagged.

He didn't pin his comment as you claimed multiple times either.

It's not blind faith, but good faith based on Dang's > decade long track record on HN as moderator.

He's probably not deleting or flagging anything because he's aware it will make him look biased. This is a common strategy. Dang picking and choosing only to censor the most insidious things remains an open possibility.

Also, what decade long track record? You have a record of posts that were deleted or censored? That would be a track record. But guess what? none exists. That's a fact.

All I'm saying is that a conflict of interest exists and because of this conflict of interest, dangs comment is pure sketch.

Am I going to let my neighbor borrow a million dollars just because he has good credit? No. It would be unwise to do so and you blindly trusting dang is highly, highly unwise.

All forms of faith are blindness.

I claimed multiple times that it looks like this was pinned. Whether it was actually pinned is open for debate. So you make a claim it wasn't pinned, why don't you prove it with something other than blind faith in dang saying he never pinned it.

You are making the accusations. In the court of law, it's up to you to prove it and you obviously can't.

You're constantly making accusations without any proof.