Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.[1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

How am I not? He proposes no company may store in a. Database a (PIi, Time, Location) triple. I am responding to exactly the claim he made and do not take kindly to your backseat moderating.

The context was surveillance without consent. Not service with consent. It is not certain they meant their proposal in this context. But it is plausible.

Users reminding other users of the guidelines is common here. I will stop if a moderator says to stop. Your complaint is your problem otherwise.

Point out where the GP says a single word about consent.

You didn't understand what context, not certain, or plausible meant?

What do you think “must not” means? That doesn’t allow wiggle room.

Does MUST NOT in RFCs mean must not ever? Or in the context of the RFCs?

Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html reply

Why do you expect engagement when you continually respond with bad faith and personal attacks?

My comments contained no bad faith or personal attacks.

Most people do not reply when reminded of the comment guidelines. And the question was rhetorical. But you will engage as long as I do seemingly.