If deletion is possible, there is very little clutter. If deletion is not possible, and the comment says “I can’t figure out how to delete this,” at least it discourages other people’s experiments. But this thread is itself clutter, so I don’t think that is your true rejection. As to bluntness, I conclude that my being less blunt caused you to confabulate bullshit.
As to bluntness, I conclude that my being less blunt caused you to confabulate bullshit.
On reflection, it is probably more accurate for me to say, “I wasn’t interested in experimenting, including for concern that the experimenting would look low status, and I have higher preferred ways of acting low status.”
As for my own choice not to be blunt, you are not correctly modelling my thought process.
In short, I gave two reasons for my action, and you might be right that one was confabulation, but not the one you identify as confabulation.
Why are you not sure of facts that are subject to easy experiments? (arundelo is wrong)
I have performed the experiment in question and it seems to support arundelo’s claim. I am not able to remove this comment. At the very least it demonstrates that the experiment required to prove arundelo’s fully general claim is false is not the ‘easy’ one.
Well, now I’m totally confused. Checking Eugine_Nier’s account on ibiblio shows that the comment is missing. (Searching for the word “sarcasm” will get you to about when the comment took place, at least as of the date of this comment)
Well, now I’m totally confused. Checking Eugine_Nier’s account on ibiblio shows that the comment is missing. (Searching for the word “sarcasm” will get you to about when the comment took place, at least as of the date of this comment)
Why are you not sure of facts that are subject to easy experiments? (update: arundelo is correct)
Experiment clutters the venue, and being less blunt avoids the appearance of a status conflict.
If deletion is possible, there is very little clutter. If deletion is not possible, and the comment says “I can’t figure out how to delete this,” at least it discourages other people’s experiments. But this thread is itself clutter, so I don’t think that is your true rejection. As to bluntness, I conclude that my being less blunt caused you to confabulate bullshit.
PS—I experiment on the open thread.
On reflection, it is probably more accurate for me to say, “I wasn’t interested in experimenting, including for concern that the experimenting would look low status, and I have higher preferred ways of acting low status.”
As for my own choice not to be blunt, you are not correctly modelling my thought process.
In short, I gave two reasons for my action, and you might be right that one was confabulation, but not the one you identify as confabulation.
I have performed the experiment in question and it seems to support arundelo’s claim. I am not able to remove this comment. At the very least it demonstrates that the experiment required to prove arundelo’s fully general claim is false is not the ‘easy’ one.
Well, now I’m totally confused. Checking Eugine_Nier’s account on ibiblio shows that the comment is missing. (Searching for the word “sarcasm” will get you to about when the comment took place, at least as of the date of this comment)
See my investigation. Short answer: race condition.
Thanks actually experimenting. My beliefs were two months out of date. I stand by my objection to Tim’s comment.