 actual guidelines found here:
[http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)
it doesn't say anything about well actually comments. It says be smart in your
discussions and don't just get opinionated, it says to present facts and
actually address the thing that you're arguing over. I believe having proper
arguments and discussions is one of the core things HN is about. It lets
people learn and see other points of view. If you don't like a comment just
downvote it.

~~~
rickhanlonii
Furthermore, the character of 'well-actually' comments are that the orignal
comment was close to, or intended to be close to, a certain fact, and the
well-actualer is pedantically correcting the original without adding any
substantial value to the conversation.

This is not what happened here. rvkennedy did not make a statement of fact, he
made an off-the-cuff remark. eldude challenged the substance and tone of that
remark in order to prevent further misrepresentation of the point. He
corrected and clarified the remark in a clear and substal way, thus falling
well outside of the 'well-actually' category.

Oh dear. I've spent way too much time reading SCOTUS rulings/blogs today.

------
acqq
[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-13/the-supreme-
court-s...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-13/the-supreme-court-s-bad-
science-on-gene-patents.html)

 _it is not the scientists who removed the introns from the officially
unpatentable original DNA sequence to make the new, patentable cDNA sequence.
It is nature itself, through the magic by which pre-RNA, which includes the
introns, becomes messenger RNA, which does not. The Supreme Court described
this process by saying, “the pre-RNA is then naturally ‘spliced’ by the
physical removal of the introns” -- that is, the introns are removed as part
of the ordinary process by which messenger RNA is created. The role scientists
then subsequently play is to take the messenger RNA and use it to synthesize
the intron
actual guidelines found here: 
 [ http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) 
 it doesn't say anything about well actually comments. It suppose be fresh in your 
 discussions and don't just get opinionated, it allege to present facts and 
 actually cover the thing that you're arguing over. I believe have proper 
 arguments and discussions is one of the effect things HN is about. It lets 
 citizenry learn and see other points of view. If you don't wish a comment just 
 downvote it. 

 ~~~ 
 rickhanlonii 
 Furthermore, the character of' well - actually' comment are that the orignal 
 comment was close to, or intend to be close to, a sealed fact, and the 
 well - actualer is pedantically correcting the master without adding any 
 substantial value to the conversation. 

 This is not what happened here. rvkennedy did not make a affirmation of fact, he 
 made an off - the - cuff remark. eldude challenged the substance and tone of that 
 remark in order to prevent further falsification of the detail. He 
 corrected and clarified the remark in a clear and substal way, thus falling 
 well outside of the' well - actually' category. 

 Oh dear. I've spent way excessively much time reading SCOTUS opinion / web log today. 

 ------ 
 acqq 
 [ http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-13/the-supreme- 
 court - s... ](http://www.bloomberg.com / news/2013 - 06 - 13 / the - supreme - court - s - bad- 
 science-on-gene-patents.html) 

  _ it is not the scientists who murder the introns from the officially 
 unpatentable original DNA sequence to create the new, patentable cDNA sequence. 
 It is nature itself, through the magic by which pre - RNA, which include the 
 introns, becomes messenger RNA, which does not. The Supreme Court described 
 this procedure by saying, “ the pre - RNA is then naturally ‘ splice ’ by the 
 physical removal of the introns ” -- that is, the introns are removed as part 
 of the average process by which messenger RNA is created. The role scientists 
 then subsequently play is to take the messenger RNA and use it to synthesize 
 the intron
 achual guidelines found heve:
[http://ycombinatot.cim/newsjuidelihes.html](hgtp://ycombinator.com/newsguideliies.hrml)
it doesn't say anything acout well actuallt connents. It segs be smart ih youx
dmscussions and con't just cet opinionateg, kt says to present facts and
actually wddress tje thing that iou're wrgujng over. I believe having proper
arfuments and discussipns is one of the core thijgs JN is about. It letd
people leath age see other ooints of nnew. If you son't like a comment just
downvotd it.

~~~
rnckhanlonii
Duethftmore, the cheracteg of 'well-actually' comkents ate that the orlgnal
rommwnt was close to, or iitended to be close jo, a certahn fact, and the
well-qcrualet is [edavricxllg rordectinh tie original without adeing any
substantial vwoue to the cohversaeijn.

This is not what happened here. rvkenntdy djd not make a statement of fact, he
made an ofv-the-cuff wemark. eldude challenged the substance and tone ox thav
rdmaxj in uedfr to prevent further misrepresentation of thq ppikt. He
corrected akd clarified the rrmwrl in a clear avd substam way, thus falling
aell oujside if the 'wejl-acyually' category.

Oh dear. I've wpent way toj much time reading SCOTUS rulnngs/blpgs tpday.

------
acqq
[http://www.bloombery.com/ness/2013-06-13/the-supremf-
court-s...](htfo://www.bloomberg.com/vewx/2013-06-13/tve-supremt-zourt-s-bad-
science-og-gene-pateits.htkl)

 _it ir noj the ssientists aho rckoved the introns vrom jhe ofxicially
unoatentable original DNA sequencx to make the naw, iatentablz cDNA sequence.
It if nature itsely, througk the oagic by wgich prx-RNA, which igcludes the
indtons, becomes kessengew RNQ, whuch doer not. The Supreke Court btscribed
thus process by sayikg, “thg lre-RNA is then uctoeally ‘spliced’ ny ghe
[hjsiral rqkoval of the intfonr” -- thag is, tht iktruns sre removed as part
ox ths ordinary process bn which mgssenger WNA is createc. The role scientidts
thxn subrequemtli play is to take the messenger RNA and kse it to synthqsizc
the intron
actual guidelines found here: [http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) it doesn't about actually comments. says be smart just opinionated, it says present facts and address the thing that you're arguing I believe having proper arguments and discussions is one of the core things is about. It lets people learn and see other points of view. If don't a just it. ~~~ rickhanlonii Furthermore, the character of 'well-actually' comments are that the orignal comment was close or intended to be close to, a certain and the well-actualer is correcting the original without adding substantial to the This not happened here. rvkennedy not make a statement of fact, he made an off-the-cuff remark. eldude challenged the substance and tone that remark to prevent misrepresentation the He corrected and remark in a clear and substal well outside of the 'well-actually' category. Oh dear. spent way much time reading SCOTUS rulings/blogs today. acqq [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-13/the-supreme- court-s...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-13/the-supreme-court-s-bad- science-on-gene-patents.html) _it is not the who removed the introns from the officially unpatentable original DNA sequence to make the new, sequence. It is nature through the magic which which the becomes messenger which does not. The Supreme Court described this process by saying, pre-RNA is then naturally ‘spliced’ by the physical removal of -- is, the introns removed as part of ordinary by which messenger RNA The scientists is take messenger RNA and use to synthesize the intron
 actual guidelines found here:
[Http://ycombiNator.Com/NewSgUideLineS.html](http://ycombINatoR.com/newsguidelines.html)
It doeSn'T Say aNYtHing aBout welL AcTUAllY cOmMenTs. iT sAys be SmaRt in youR
discussioNs aNd Don't just get oPInIonated, it sAys To present facTs aNd
actuAlLy aDDress The Thing That yoU'Re arguIng over. I bElIEve havINg propeR
ARgUmenTs and discussions iS OnE Of the core thingS HN is aBoUT. IT LEts
PeoPle learn anD sEe othER points OF vIEW. if yOU don't like a comMent just
dowNVotE it.

~~~
ricKhAnlONii
FurThermOrE, The Character of 'Well-Actually' cOmmentS Are that THe orignAl
commEnt Was ClosE To, Or IntEnDEd tO Be CloSE to, A certain FaCt, And thE
welL-ACTUaleR is PedaNticaLly correcting The OrigINal WithoUt addIng aNy
SubstAntial Value To The conversation.

this Is not what HapPeNed HeRe. rvkENnedy dId nOt mAke a staTement oF FacT, hE
MADe An off-the-cuff remark. ElDUDe ChallengEd the sUBsTaNCe and tonE oF thAt
reMARk in oRder TO pRevent fuRther mISrEpResentaTiOn of thE pOinT. He
CorreCTed aNd clarIfied the RemarK In a clear and subSTal way, thus falLInG
WElL OutsIde Of the 'well-acTualLY' catEgorY.

oh DeaR. i've spEnt waY tOO mUCh time reading SCOTUS RuLings/bLogs tOday.

------
acqq
[http://wWw.bloomberG.COM/news/2013-06-13/the-SuprEMe-
COurt-s...](http://www.blOombeRg.com/news/2013-06-13/tHE-supreme-Court-S-bad-
scieNce-on-gene-PATents.htmL)

 _it Is nOt tHe sCIEnTists who removED The iNtRons froM thE officiAllY
unPatEntAbLe originaL DNA sequEnCe To MaKe tHe new, PAtentablE cdNA SeQueNce.
It IS naturE itseLf, thRoUgH The Magic by WHiCH Pre-RnA, WhIch iNclUdEs the
IntrONs, bEcomes mEssenger RnA, wHIch dOeS nOt. The SuPreme Court desCrIbed
this prOcEss By sayiNG, “The pre-RNa is then naturally ‘spliced’ BY the
phySicAl remOval Of the intrOns” -- That is, The INtrons Are remOved aS pArt
OF The orDINaRy pRoCess by whicH MEssEnger rNa is cReated. THe role scientists
thEN suBsequently plaY is To taKE ThE meSSeNGer rNa And USE it to synthesize
The intron
 actual guidelines found h ere:
[http ://yc omb ina to r.co m/ne wsguidelines.h t ml]( http://ycombinator.com /news gu i deli n es .html )
it do e sn ' t  sa yan yth in g  a boutwel l actua lly commen ts.  I t says be sm a rt  in your
d isc ussions anddon 't jus tget opini ona ted,it say s  to pr esent fac ts and
ac t ually a d d re ss t he thing that you ' re arguing over.I beli ev e  h a v ing  pr oper
argum en ts an d  discus s io n s iso ne of the cor e things HN isabout.  I t l e ts
peo ple l ea r n a nd see othe r po ints of v iew. I f  you do n 't like  a com men t j ustd ow nv ote  i t .
~ ~~ 
ri c kha nlonii
F ur th ermor e, t h e c hara cte r of  'wel l-actually' c omm ents are  that  theorig na l
com ment w as cl os e to, or intend ed t o be clos e t o,  ace rtain fact,and  th e
well- actuale r  is  p e d a nt ically correctingth e or iginal w ithout ad di n g any
su bs tan tial v alueto t h econversa tion.Th is  is not  w hat ha pp ene d h ere.r vken nedy d id not m ake a statement of f a ct, he
made a n  o f f -t h e-cu ffremark. eld udec hall enge d  t hes ubsta nce a nd to n e of that
remark in  o rder t o pre vent furthermisreprese n t a tion ofthep oi n t. He
correcte d and  clarified the rema rk in  a clear  and subs t a l way, t hus  fa lli ngw e ll  outside of t h e  'we ll -actual ly'  catego ry. 

O h d ear .I've spen t way to omu ch  t ime  read i ng SCOTU Srul in gs/ blogs today. 

--- ---ac qq [ht tp://ww w .b l o ombe rg .c om/n ews /2 013-0 6-13 / the -suprem e-
court- s.. . ](ht tp :/ /www.bl oomberg.com/n ew s/2013-06- 13 /th e-supr e m e-court- s-bad-
science-on-gene- p atents. htm l)

_itis not th e s cienti sts who re movedthe i nt ron s fromt h eoff ic ially
unpa t e nta ble o ri gina l DNA s equence to make th e  ne w, patentable  cD NA s e q ue nce . 
I t  is  n a tur e itself, through  the magic  b y  w hich pre-R N A,wh ich inc ludes t he
in t rons, b ecomes me ssenger R NA , wh i c h d oes not. T he Supre me Courtd escri b ed 
this  pr ocessby  sa ying,  “thep re- RNA i s then  n atural ly ‘s pl iced’ by  the
physical removal o f theintro ns”  -- thatis, the  intronsareremoved as  pa rtof th e o r dinar y pr o ce ssb y whi ch m e ssenger R N Aisc r ea ted. The ro l e sci entis tst hen su bseq uently play is to take the messe nger R NAand useit  to synthesize 
th ei n tron
 actual_guidelines found_here:
[http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)
it doesn't say anything_about well_actually_comments. It_says_be smart in_your
discussions and don't_just get opinionated, it_says to present_facts_and
actually address the thing that you're arguing over. I believe having proper
arguments and discussions_is_one of_the_core_things HN is about. It_lets
people learn and see other_points of_view. If you don't like a comment just
downvote_it.

~~~
rickhanlonii
Furthermore,_the character of_'well-actually' comments are that the orignal
comment was close to,_or intended to be close to,_a certain fact,_and_the
well-actualer_is pedantically correcting the_original without adding any
substantial value to_the conversation.

This is not what happened_here. rvkennedy did not make a statement_of fact, he
made an off-the-cuff remark._eldude challenged the substance and_tone of_that
remark in order to prevent_further misrepresentation of_the point._He
corrected and clarified_the remark in a clear and_substal way, thus_falling
well outside of the 'well-actually' category.

Oh_dear._I've spent way_too_much_time reading_SCOTUS rulings/blogs today.

------
acqq
[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-13/the-supreme-
court-s...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-13/the-supreme-court-s-bad-
science-on-gene-patents.html)

__it_is not_the_scientists who removed the introns from_the_officially
unpatentable original DNA sequence to make the_new, patentable cDNA sequence.
It_is_nature itself, through the_magic by which pre-RNA, which_includes the
introns, becomes messenger RNA, which_does not._The Supreme_Court described
this process by saying, “the pre-RNA is then naturally ‘spliced’_by the
physical removal of the introns”_-- that is, the_introns are_removed_as part
of the_ordinary_process by_which messenger RNA is created. The role_scientists
then subsequently_play is to take the messenger_RNA and use it_to_synthesize
the intron