It didn’t have the same cohesiveness as Holden’s original post; there were many more dangling threads, to borrow the same metaphor I used to say why his post was so interesting. You wrote it as a technical, thoroughly cited response and literature review instead of a heartfelt, wholly self-contained Mission Statement, and you made it very clear of that by stating at least 10 times that there was much more info ‘somewhere else’ (in conversations, in people’s heads, yet to be written, etc.).
He wrote an intriguing short story, you wrote a dry paper.
Edit: Also, the answer to every question seems to be, “That will be in Eliezer’s next Sequence,” which postpones further debate.
It didn’t have the same cohesiveness as Holden’s original post; there were many more dangling threads, to borrow the same metaphor I used to say why his post was so interesting. You wrote it as a technical, thoroughly cited response and literature review instead of a heartfelt, wholly self-contained Mission Statement, and you made it very clear of that by stating at least 10 times that there was much more info ‘somewhere else’ (in conversations, in people’s heads, yet to be written, etc.).
He wrote an intriguing short story, you wrote a dry paper.
Edit: Also, the answer to every question seems to be, “That will be in Eliezer’s next Sequence,” which postpones further debate.