I find it ‘interesting’ that we’ve both had our posts voted down to zero. Could it be that someone objects to pointing out that the game is a money sink and therefore one might have perfectly rational reasons to avoid it?
In addition to what Z M Davis said, I voted both of your posts down because I felt they added nothing useful to the discussion. Thomblake’s was just information responding to yours, so I left it alone.
This comment isn’t meant as arrogant or aggressive, just an explanation since it seems you’ve asked for one.
To directly answer your question:
Could it be that someone objects to pointing out that the game is a money sink and therefore one might have perfectly rational reasons to avoid it?
I do not object to the comment, but I think it is less valuable than other comments. Hope that helps.
That, of course, is your opinion and you’re welcome to it. But I thought that I was (perhaps too verbosely to be clear) pointing out that this the original article was yet-another post on Less Wrong that seemed to be saying.
“Do X. Its the rational thing to do. If you don’t do X, you aren’t rational.”
I was trying to point out that there may be many rational reasons for not doing X.
I find it ‘interesting’ that we’ve both had our posts voted down to zero. Could it be that someone objects to pointing out that the game is a money sink and therefore one might have perfectly rational reasons to avoid it?
Posts now start at zero, with self-voting no longer allowed.
Ah, interesting. That was not considered important enough to get into the RSS feed, so I never saw it.
In addition to what Z M Davis said, I voted both of your posts down because I felt they added nothing useful to the discussion. Thomblake’s was just information responding to yours, so I left it alone.
This comment isn’t meant as arrogant or aggressive, just an explanation since it seems you’ve asked for one.
To directly answer your question:
I do not object to the comment, but I think it is less valuable than other comments. Hope that helps.
That, of course, is your opinion and you’re welcome to it. But I thought that I was (perhaps too verbosely to be clear) pointing out that this the original article was yet-another post on Less Wrong that seemed to be saying.
“Do X. Its the rational thing to do. If you don’t do X, you aren’t rational.”
I was trying to point out that there may be many rational reasons for not doing X.
Karma now starts at zero. (Or were both these posts once at 1?)