Tim, your three comments here aren’t actually helping me understand anything better. I hope your fourth comment will. Do you, or don’t you, detect a valid argument in the study apart from the one I summarized? With justification, please.
This is going dangerously meta, but yes. I’d like you to either understand the submission, or stop commenting on it if you can’t spare the time. Right now we have seven comments here; five of them are yours; they all utterly lack substance (yeah, even that one where you enumerate definitions out of books with a triumphant air); you admit to not understanding the article in question; and you still go on? Honestly, why?
Cousin, you appear to be rather antagonistic. I’m sorry I did not like the article you posted as much as all that. How about we avoid each other for a while—to allow you to cool off?
Am not! :-) I can’t say I liked the article that much either. I just wanted to run it by the LW crowd to see if you people could detect a valid argument that I’d missed, like Rune did with the chess post.
The anger wasn’t about you as a person, but about the discussion standard being lowered. If you dislike the article, you were supposed to communicate your reasons. Like, actually write a paragraph or two of text that doesn’t completely consist of unsubstantiated claims like “utter nonsense”, “ridiculous” or “hopelessly inadequate”. Otherwise the validity of your dislike remains a mystery to everyone but yourself, and all we get is a one-liner comment thread.
Yes, spelling things out takes effort. I for one put quite a lot of effort into the quality of my comments at LW and would like others to do the same lest the place devolves.
Tim, your three comments here aren’t actually helping me understand anything better. I hope your fourth comment will. Do you, or don’t you, detect a valid argument in the study apart from the one I summarized? With justification, please.
You want me to spend more time on this study? How do you expect me to justify that?
This is going dangerously meta, but yes. I’d like you to either understand the submission, or stop commenting on it if you can’t spare the time. Right now we have seven comments here; five of them are yours; they all utterly lack substance (yeah, even that one where you enumerate definitions out of books with a triumphant air); you admit to not understanding the article in question; and you still go on? Honestly, why?
Cousin, you appear to be rather antagonistic. I’m sorry I did not like the article you posted as much as all that. How about we avoid each other for a while—to allow you to cool off?
Am not! :-) I can’t say I liked the article that much either. I just wanted to run it by the LW crowd to see if you people could detect a valid argument that I’d missed, like Rune did with the chess post.
The anger wasn’t about you as a person, but about the discussion standard being lowered. If you dislike the article, you were supposed to communicate your reasons. Like, actually write a paragraph or two of text that doesn’t completely consist of unsubstantiated claims like “utter nonsense”, “ridiculous” or “hopelessly inadequate”. Otherwise the validity of your dislike remains a mystery to everyone but yourself, and all we get is a one-liner comment thread.
Yes, spelling things out takes effort. I for one put quite a lot of effort into the quality of my comments at LW and would like others to do the same lest the place devolves.
Hope that helps.