How complicated is providing context for that without a week of work on your side? The only plausible exculpatory context I can imagine is something akin to: “If somebody sent me a text like this, I would sever all contact with them, so I’m providing it as an example of what I consider to be unacceptable.” I fail to see how hard it is to explain why the claims are false now and then provide detailed receipts within the week.
I don’t know any of the parties involved here, but the Nonlinear side seems pretty fishy so far.
So, I’m new here, and apparently, I’ve misunderstood something. My comment didn’t seem all that controversial to me, but it’s been down-voted by everybody who gave it a vote. Can somebody pass me a clue as to why there is strong disagreement with my statement? Thanks.
I think that if a comment gets lots and lots of eyes on it, the upvotes and agreement votes will end up being reasonable enough. But I think there are other situations (not uncommon) where there are not enough eyes on it and the vote counts are unreasonable. I also think that there is a risk of unreasonable vote counts even once there are lots of eyes on the comment in question in situations like these where the dynamics are particularly mind-killing.
For your comment, I don’t see anything downvote worthy. My best guess is that the downvoters didn’t think you were being charitable enough. Personally I think the belief that you were being uncharitable enough to justify a downvote is pretty unreasonable.
As of now, the votes are positive. I guess it sometimes happens that some people like your comment, some people don’t like it, and the ones who don’t like it just noticed it first.
(By the way, I mostly agree with the spirit of your comment, but I think you used too strong words. So I didn’t vote either way. For example, as mentioned elsewhere, a good reason to wait for a week might be that the “context” is someone else’s words, and you want to get their consent to publish the record. Also, the conclusion that “the Nonlinear side seems pretty fishy” is like… yeah, I suppose that most readers feel the same, but the debate is precisely about whether Nonlinear can produce in a week some context that will make it seem “less fishy”. They would probably agree that the text as it is written now does not put them in good light.)
How complicated is providing context for that without a week of work on your side? The only plausible exculpatory context I can imagine is something akin to: “If somebody sent me a text like this, I would sever all contact with them, so I’m providing it as an example of what I consider to be unacceptable.” I fail to see how hard it is to explain why the claims are false now and then provide detailed receipts within the week.
I don’t know any of the parties involved here, but the Nonlinear side seems pretty fishy so far.
So, I’m new here, and apparently, I’ve misunderstood something. My comment didn’t seem all that controversial to me, but it’s been down-voted by everybody who gave it a vote. Can somebody pass me a clue as to why there is strong disagreement with my statement? Thanks.
I think that if a comment gets lots and lots of eyes on it, the upvotes and agreement votes will end up being reasonable enough. But I think there are other situations (not uncommon) where there are not enough eyes on it and the vote counts are unreasonable. I also think that there is a risk of unreasonable vote counts even once there are lots of eyes on the comment in question in situations like these where the dynamics are particularly mind-killing.
For your comment, I don’t see anything downvote worthy. My best guess is that the downvoters didn’t think you were being charitable enough. Personally I think the belief that you were being uncharitable enough to justify a downvote is pretty unreasonable.
As of now, the votes are positive. I guess it sometimes happens that some people like your comment, some people don’t like it, and the ones who don’t like it just noticed it first.
(By the way, I mostly agree with the spirit of your comment, but I think you used too strong words. So I didn’t vote either way. For example, as mentioned elsewhere, a good reason to wait for a week might be that the “context” is someone else’s words, and you want to get their consent to publish the record. Also, the conclusion that “the Nonlinear side seems pretty fishy” is like… yeah, I suppose that most readers feel the same, but the debate is precisely about whether Nonlinear can produce in a week some context that will make it seem “less fishy”. They would probably agree that the text as it is written now does not put them in good light.)