Given that the user tries to make the same argument again and again and doesn’t participate in LW discussions that aren’t about his core agenda I ask myself whether he has a place here.
I don’t think he does. Almost every single one of his posts are about his site or responding to comments on it. Just because he is polite about it doesn’t mean he is not a spammer.
Responding to comments is the majority of my discussions and are not about my core agenda. They are discussions which might’ve stemmed from (on it) it, yet still are separate discussions which have their own value. This also dismisses what ChristianKI implies in of itself. Which he himself knows, we’ve talked about German laws in the comments which has nothing to do with my agenda. It was a discussion. On lesswrong.
I ask myself whether he has a place here.
I don’t think he does.
I’ve not linked to my site, but a site, which proposes a new view or idea and discussed of it in the past. Maybe once a month and you think I shouldn’t be allowed to do so here. It’s quite surprising as instead of refuting said idea you seem to imply I am a spammer.
I’ll be honest. Instead of doing ad hominems to keep people away or rally your support for a ban, why not read the updated website, as if it was a meditation exercise, and tell me what you think of it. If it could possible have any substance?
The reason why I posted it in the first place was because it was re-made. It looked spam-like because I copy pasted the entire content into the comments which made an ugly wall of text. Big mistake and I am sorry for that.
Which he himself knows, we’ve talked about German laws in the comments which has nothing to do with my agenda.
The main discussion thread was about your ideas. The fact that the discussion also lead to talking about laws because you made false claims about the community surrounding clicking misses the point.
You didn’t show interest in discussions with have nothing to do with your pet agenda.
Instead of doing ad hominems to keep people away or rally your support for a ban, why not read the updated website, as if it was a meditation exercise, and tell me what you think of it. If it could possible have any substance?
Because there’s no reason to read long articles simply because someone who’s judgement I don’t trust recommends them to me.
Because there’s no reason to read long articles simply because someone who’s judgement I don’t trust recommends them to me.
How were you capable of critiquing my ideas then? You don’t have to trust my judgment, trust Bachir’s unless his track-record isn’t telling enough. Well, actually, you should think for yourself.
Given that we disabled downvoting that isn’t a high bar.
I’ve posted here
Yes, but those posts were written after my above post. They are also quite short but I grant that they are a sign that you are interested in participating more in other discussions.
Given that the user tries to make the same argument again and again and doesn’t participate in LW discussions that aren’t about his core agenda I ask myself whether he has a place here.
I don’t think he does. Almost every single one of his posts are about his site or responding to comments on it. Just because he is polite about it doesn’t mean he is not a spammer.
Responding to comments is the majority of my discussions and are not about my core agenda. They are discussions which might’ve stemmed from (on it) it, yet still are separate discussions which have their own value. This also dismisses what ChristianKI implies in of itself. Which he himself knows, we’ve talked about German laws in the comments which has nothing to do with my agenda. It was a discussion. On lesswrong.
I’ve not linked to my site, but a site, which proposes a new view or idea and discussed of it in the past. Maybe once a month and you think I shouldn’t be allowed to do so here. It’s quite surprising as instead of refuting said idea you seem to imply I am a spammer.
I’ll be honest. Instead of doing ad hominems to keep people away or rally your support for a ban, why not read the updated website, as if it was a meditation exercise, and tell me what you think of it. If it could possible have any substance?
The reason why I posted it in the first place was because it was re-made. It looked spam-like because I copy pasted the entire content into the comments which made an ugly wall of text. Big mistake and I am sorry for that.
The main discussion thread was about your ideas. The fact that the discussion also lead to talking about laws because you made false claims about the community surrounding clicking misses the point.
You didn’t show interest in discussions with have nothing to do with your pet agenda.
Because there’s no reason to read long articles simply because someone who’s judgement I don’t trust recommends them to me.
Well I think I was quite unsure about that specific thing. I’ve posted here: http://lesswrong.com/lw/og0/ea_has_a_lying_problem/dkle and here http://lesswrong.com/lw/og1/pplapi_is_a_virtual_database_of_the_entire_human/dkmb and received positive points for both. So I do have interests outside my pet agenda. Even if it was today or yesterday.
How were you capable of critiquing my ideas then? You don’t have to trust my judgment, trust Bachir’s unless his track-record isn’t telling enough. Well, actually, you should think for yourself.
Given that we disabled downvoting that isn’t a high bar.
Yes, but those posts were written after my above post. They are also quite short but I grant that they are a sign that you are interested in participating more in other discussions.
Ok, thanks for your feedback.