It did work, in a way. But I did expend some effort trying to tease out the positive parts from the presentation. With only a minute’s worth of extra effort you could have made it work better and I would be lining up here to give you status and respect for your contribution. I know you (may believe and or assert that you) aren’t interested in status or respect here but if you care about the value are trying to ‘work’ here then you should be. You don’t want your beliefs to be associated with ‘the kind of things that only social outcasts would think’. That’s what will happen if you go around supporting things that you care about while also acting like a prat, due to similar dynamics to the ones you described.
You all are quite good at picking up the implications, which means my post worked.
It did work, in a way. But I did expend some effort trying to tease out the positive parts from the presentation. With only a minute’s worth of extra effort you could have made it work better and I would be lining up here to give you status and respect for your contribution. I know you (may believe and or assert that you) aren’t interested in status or respect here but if you care about the value are trying to ‘work’ here then you should be. You don’t want your beliefs to be associated with ‘the kind of things that only social outcasts would think’. That’s what will happen if you go around supporting things that you care about while also acting like a prat, due to similar dynamics to the ones you described.
If you intended the original comment as a test, you should have pointed out that it was a test. To do otherwise is quite rude.
I bet this is closer to what actually happened.
I’d take the other side of that bet at even odds* if it were actually possible to make a wager of this.
* Translation for Bayesians: I think that the probability that kim0 is simply an idiot is less than 0.5.