There hasn’t been a coherent argument presented yet, hence why I directly pointed out the incoherency…
No, you did not, you added a fact that further corroborated the argument, as my reply showed.
Since this is the second deflection in a row, I’ll give one more chance to answer the previous direct questions:
I have already directly answered the first question: no, I am not confused about the terminology. I have also answered the assumptions implicit in the question and shown why the question was irrelevant. Of course, both that one and the subsequent questions were merely insults disguised as questions, and your accusation that I am deflecting is mere hypocrisy and projection.
Your opinions regarding all these supposed negative characteristics do not outweigh anyone else’s, nor my own, so it seems unproductive.
I acknowledge my own comments may seem to be low quality or ‘bad’ in your eyes, but to post even lower quality replies is self-defeating.
Where are your manners?
i.e. My manners in comment writing, even though they may be low quality or detestable in your opinion, are still higher quality than what has been demonstrated so far here:
...
If the outliers are sufficiently many to generate this much discussion, and they include such notable community members as Said Achmiz, then the critique that random passing readers might not spend hours on it is clearly asinine, regardless of the exact amount of standard deviations you include. I am not “confused about this terminology”, I am just calling out your bad faith engagement.
Those in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
Can you offer some actual proof or substantive backing, not in edited comments, for at least half of all the stuff written so far?
I acknowledge my own comments may seem to be low quality or ‘bad’ in your eyes, but to post even lower quality replies is self-defeating.
I didn’t. Mine at least contained actual arguments.
Those in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
The text you quoted makes a specific argument that you once again chose to simply insult instead of addressing it. Again, your behaviour speaks for itself.
At this point it has become abundantly clear that you are simply a troll, so I will not bother to engage with you henceforth.
Like I said, one person’s opinions regarding the supposed characteristics of another’s comments simply cannot outweigh the opinions of anyone else. Plus I imagine on LW many readers can see through the superficial layer of words.
But if you genuinely want to productively engage, I’ll give one final chance:
Can you offer some actual proof or substantive backing, not in edited comments, for at least half of all the stuff written so far?
Like I said, one person’s opinions regarding the supposed characteristics of another’s comments simply cannot outweigh the opinions of anyone else.
Utterly irrelevant since I never asked anybody to take my opinions as outweighing their own.
But if you genuinely want to productively engage, I’ll give one final chance:
Can you offer some actual proof or substantive backing, not in edited comments, for at least half of all the stuff written so far?
Again, I have already presented arguments for my case. If you do not consider them sufficiently substantive, then I invite you to tell me what you see as the flaw, or why you deem them insufficient.
Utterly irrelevant since I never asked anybody to take my opinions as outweighing their own.
Again, I have already presented arguments for my case.
This is your own opinion that’s being made to sound as if they are incontestable facts… every comment sounds like this.
My opinion is the opposite and at least equally valid. So anyone can endlessly negate just by expressing the opposite opinion, hence it’s unproductive. You need to list out actual arguments, proofs, analysis, or any falsifiable claims, etc… that satisfy the criteria of the counter-party.
Whether or not they satisfy your own criteria is irrelevant to this point, and just saying it’s the truth won’t convince the counter-party. And if you still can’t accept this, then do not engage, I won’t be offended.
Since you seem to have completely lost track of what actually happened, I will remind you:
Zack made this post and was met with a barrage of abuse
Some of the abusers were blaming Zack for making a post that random passersby might not care about
I pointed out that the people making this critique had in fact interacted much more with the post than somebody who genuinely wouldn’t care
You pointed out that these people had interacted with the post in ways beside the one I just mentioned
I pointed out that this obviously corroborates my point rather than detracting from it
Instead of addressing this obvious point, you just called it incoherent and started delivering a barrage of insults instead of making any actual arguments
Ie. you are the one just asserting opinions, whereas I made arguments, and then pointed out the arguments when you denied their existence, and now you seem to be asserting that your opinion is just as valid as mine, a thinly veiled “that’s just your opinion, man”, while still ignoring the actual arguments rather than actually addressing them. That is insane.
Ie. you are the one just asserting opinions, whereas I made arguments, …
This is in itself another opinion… Did you genuinely not read my previous comment to the end?
Whether or not they satisfy your own criteria is irrelevant to this point, and just saying it’s the truth won’t convince the counter-party.
i.e. You need to convince me, not yourself. And the previous opinions are just not convincing, to me, as coherent ‘arguments’. Period.
No amount of futile replies can alter the past, unless you edit the comments, which would create its own credibility problems. We can agree to disagree and move on.
I can’t possibly hope to convince you when you are engaging in abysmally bad faith. My purpose is to call you out, because you should not be getting away with this shit.
On another note, I did in fact “list out actual arguments”, exactly as you said. I can only surmise that they didn’t satisfy the “criteria of the counter-party”, and for some unguessable (/s) reason, you once again will not give even the slightest indication of what you deem to be insufficient about them.
How exactly am I supposed to convince an interlocutor who will not even explain why he is unmoved by the arguments provided? Again, this is insane.
Do you realize I can see when you’ve posted replies and then ‘deleted them without a trace’ immediately afterwards? The mods can too.
It’s a feature of the LW notifications system, with the right timing. So there’s no use in pretending.
I didn’t want to call this out before, but it’s important to set the record straight. And the mods will back me up here.
I can’t possibly hope to convince you when you are engaging in abysmally bad faith. My purpose is to call you out, because you should not be getting away with this shit.
Anyways, just going by the writing that is considered not too embarrassing to delete, it’s clear who has the better manners in comment writing.
Do you realize I can see when you’ve posted replies and then ‘deleted them without trace’ immediately afterwards? The mods can too.
For any others wondering, the deleted comment simply said ”… That’s what I get for engaging with a blatant troll”, or something to that effect. It was because M. Y. Zuo’s manipulative bs had made me forget my actual reasons for engaging, and I deleted the comment when I remembered what they were.
But it seems superfluous at this point, since any reasonable person can tell that M. Y. Zuo’s behaviour is absolutely reprehensible. But I also have to admit that any such person can also tell that I’ve “bitten the bait” and engaged with him too long, to the point where my behaviour has become ridiculous and embarrassing.
There is a lot of wisdom to Mark Twain’s admonition to never argue with a fool, lest they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience — wisdom which, I am sorry to report, I seem to have not yet learned.
Thanks for confirming my suspicions, since the precise wording must have been very embarrassing to intentionally delete without a trace, I won’t pry, and I’ll let bygones be bygones.
It wasn’t my intention to drive you into a hopeless corner, since it seems there was substantial agitation from close to the beginning, but it’s hard to ignore deception and false pretences when the LW forum software is literally notifying me of it.
I understand it can be a bit scary and frustrating when someone much more experienced and well established takes a counter-argument line, so I won’t provoke whatever root issue(s) is lying beneath all this but I do hope there’s some value in what’s been written.
Thanks for confirming my suspicions, since the precise wording must have been very embarrassing to intentionally delete without a trace, I won’t pry, and I’ll let bygones be bygones.
I already told you what the comment said. I deleted it not because I thought it was embarrassing, but because I thought it was irrelevant.
Is there some way for moderators or admins to identify the content of a deleted comment? If so, I give my permission for them to do so and state publicly what it contained.
I understand it can be a bit scary and frustrating when someone much more experienced and well established takes a counter-argument line
I have been in this community for over ten years.
This latest comment of yours is utterly disgraceful and contemptible by any reasonable standard. Purely an attempt to humiliate me, and on an entirely speculative basis. So much for “letting bygones be bygones”, eh?
EDIT: I wanted to say it was an interesting discussion to be polite, but the juvenile insults and mud slinging tactics are obvious enough that probably zero passing readers would believe it.
No, you did not, you added a fact that further corroborated the argument, as my reply showed.
I have already directly answered the first question: no, I am not confused about the terminology. I have also answered the assumptions implicit in the question and shown why the question was irrelevant. Of course, both that one and the subsequent questions were merely insults disguised as questions, and your accusation that I am deflecting is mere hypocrisy and projection.
Where are your manners?
I’m getting tired of this back and forth.
Your opinions regarding all these supposed negative characteristics do not outweigh anyone else’s, nor my own, so it seems unproductive.
I acknowledge my own comments may seem to be low quality or ‘bad’ in your eyes, but to post even lower quality replies is self-defeating.
i.e. My manners in comment writing, even though they may be low quality or detestable in your opinion, are still higher quality than what has been demonstrated so far here:
Those in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
Can you offer some actual proof or substantive backing, not in edited comments, for at least half of all the stuff written so far?
I didn’t. Mine at least contained actual arguments.
The text you quoted makes a specific argument that you once again chose to simply insult instead of addressing it. Again, your behaviour speaks for itself.
At this point it has become abundantly clear that you are simply a troll, so I will not bother to engage with you henceforth.
Like I said, one person’s opinions regarding the supposed characteristics of another’s comments simply cannot outweigh the opinions of anyone else. Plus I imagine on LW many readers can see through the superficial layer of words.
But if you genuinely want to productively engage, I’ll give one final chance:
Utterly irrelevant since I never asked anybody to take my opinions as outweighing their own.
Again, I have already presented arguments for my case. If you do not consider them sufficiently substantive, then I invite you to tell me what you see as the flaw, or why you deem them insufficient.
This is your own opinion that’s being made to sound as if they are incontestable facts… every comment sounds like this.
My opinion is the opposite and at least equally valid. So anyone can endlessly negate just by expressing the opposite opinion, hence it’s unproductive. You need to list out actual arguments, proofs, analysis, or any falsifiable claims, etc… that satisfy the criteria of the counter-party.
Whether or not they satisfy your own criteria is irrelevant to this point, and just saying it’s the truth won’t convince the counter-party. And if you still can’t accept this, then do not engage, I won’t be offended.
Since you seem to have completely lost track of what actually happened, I will remind you:
Zack made this post and was met with a barrage of abuse
Some of the abusers were blaming Zack for making a post that random passersby might not care about
I pointed out that the people making this critique had in fact interacted much more with the post than somebody who genuinely wouldn’t care
You pointed out that these people had interacted with the post in ways beside the one I just mentioned
I pointed out that this obviously corroborates my point rather than detracting from it
Instead of addressing this obvious point, you just called it incoherent and started delivering a barrage of insults instead of making any actual arguments
Ie. you are the one just asserting opinions, whereas I made arguments, and then pointed out the arguments when you denied their existence, and now you seem to be asserting that your opinion is just as valid as mine, a thinly veiled “that’s just your opinion, man”, while still ignoring the actual arguments rather than actually addressing them. That is insane.
This is in itself another opinion… Did you genuinely not read my previous comment to the end?
i.e. You need to convince me, not yourself. And the previous opinions are just not convincing, to me, as coherent ‘arguments’. Period.
No amount of futile replies can alter the past, unless you edit the comments, which would create its own credibility problems. We can agree to disagree and move on.
I can’t possibly hope to convince you when you are engaging in abysmally bad faith. My purpose is to call you out, because you should not be getting away with this shit.
On another note, I did in fact “list out actual arguments”, exactly as you said. I can only surmise that they didn’t satisfy the “criteria of the counter-party”, and for some unguessable (/s) reason, you once again will not give even the slightest indication of what you deem to be insufficient about them.
How exactly am I supposed to convince an interlocutor who will not even explain why he is unmoved by the arguments provided? Again, this is insane.
Do you realize I can see when you’ve posted replies and then ‘deleted them without a trace’ immediately afterwards? The mods can too.
It’s a feature of the LW notifications system, with the right timing. So there’s no use in pretending.
I didn’t want to call this out before, but it’s important to set the record straight. And the mods will back me up here.
Anyways, just going by the writing that is considered not too embarrassing to delete, it’s clear who has the better manners in comment writing.
For any others wondering, the deleted comment simply said ”… That’s what I get for engaging with a blatant troll”, or something to that effect. It was because M. Y. Zuo’s manipulative bs had made me forget my actual reasons for engaging, and I deleted the comment when I remembered what they were.
But it seems superfluous at this point, since any reasonable person can tell that M. Y. Zuo’s behaviour is absolutely reprehensible. But I also have to admit that any such person can also tell that I’ve “bitten the bait” and engaged with him too long, to the point where my behaviour has become ridiculous and embarrassing.
There is a lot of wisdom to Mark Twain’s admonition to never argue with a fool, lest they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience — wisdom which, I am sorry to report, I seem to have not yet learned.
Thanks for confirming my suspicions, since the precise wording must have been very embarrassing to intentionally delete without a trace, I won’t pry, and I’ll let bygones be bygones.
It wasn’t my intention to drive you into a hopeless corner, since it seems there was substantial agitation from close to the beginning, but it’s hard to ignore deception and false pretences when the LW forum software is literally notifying me of it.
I understand it can be a bit scary and frustrating when someone much more experienced and well established takes a counter-argument line, so I won’t provoke whatever root issue(s) is lying beneath all this but I do hope there’s some value in what’s been written.
I already told you what the comment said. I deleted it not because I thought it was embarrassing, but because I thought it was irrelevant.
Is there some way for moderators or admins to identify the content of a deleted comment? If so, I give my permission for them to do so and state publicly what it contained.
I have been in this community for over ten years.
This latest comment of yours is utterly disgraceful and contemptible by any reasonable standard. Purely an attempt to humiliate me, and on an entirely speculative basis. So much for “letting bygones be bygones”, eh?
So we agree to disagree.
EDIT: I wanted to say it was an interesting discussion to be polite, but the juvenile insults and mud slinging tactics are obvious enough that probably zero passing readers would believe it.