If you’d read Vaniver’s comment, you’d agree that Stuart was acting in bad faith. So you didn’t read it, but then you responded to it! It is extremely rude to respond to a comment you haven’t read.
How about Stuart_Armstrong’s response to satt’s comment? It looks to me like Stuart agrees there was ambiguity there.
(And, to be clear, by “ambiguity there” I am using ambiguity as a one-place word by choosing the maximum of the two-place ambiguity among the actual readers of the post. Stuart has no ambiguity about what Stuart meant, but Steven does, and so the one-place ambiguity is Steven’s ambiguity.)
If you’d read my comment, it’s clear that I am objecting to your rhetoric. Only you can prevent the jump to the assumption that I have a dog in the fight.
I hate this rhetoric. I did read Stuart’s post.
If you’d read Vaniver’s comment, you’d agree that Stuart was acting in bad faith. So you didn’t read it, but then you responded to it! It is extremely rude to respond to a comment you haven’t read.
Do you have an actual argument that there was ambiguity in Stuart’s post?
How about Stuart_Armstrong’s response to satt’s comment? It looks to me like Stuart agrees there was ambiguity there.
(And, to be clear, by “ambiguity there” I am using ambiguity as a one-place word by choosing the maximum of the two-place ambiguity among the actual readers of the post. Stuart has no ambiguity about what Stuart meant, but Steven does, and so the one-place ambiguity is Steven’s ambiguity.)
If you’d read my comment, it’s clear that I am objecting to your rhetoric. Only you can prevent the jump to the assumption that I have a dog in the fight.