Since you took notice of the discussion, I thought I'd point out that in the past, you'd given me flak for copying and reposting a previous comment of mine:
Since the rule isn't based on whether you like the content being copied, I thought you'd like to be aware so you can treat his comment the same way.
FWIW, I think it's a stupid rule: if you said something just right the first time around, why re-write? It makes perfect sense for Colin to make the same comment again, just as it did in my case! I think he did the right thing!
It seems like, in practice, the actual rule is, "you can copy earlier comments, just don't own up to doing it or make it easier to find related discussion of the same point, like Silas did".
To compare two single datapoints across 6 years (!) is an extreme underestimate of the role played by randomness in HN moderation. I guess in that way it makes sense that the discrepancy felt personal to you. I promise it wasn't!
But now you know of the violation! Don't you want to remind Colin of the rule now? Or maybe the rule isn't actually that important, for the reasons in my last comment, and you were just looking for a reason to make your criticism of my six-year-old/8-year-old comment more authoritative?
The Point of the Banach-Tarski Theorem - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34482226 - Jan 2023 (105 comments)
The Point of the Banach-Tarski Theorem – not just a curiosity - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9674286 - June 2015 (91 comments)