Come on, please, you can figure out what I mean with those sentences.
This just doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. I don’t understand how you can say this and expect to be believed, when you cite Duncan as one of your examples of “many top authors citing [Said] as a top reason for why they do not want to post on the site” (and indeed as the only example for which you’ve been able to provide any kind of unambiguous proof)—and that, in turn, is your explanation for what “the stakes” of this decision are!
Yes, many top authors cite you as a reason for why they do not want to post on the site. This does not mean that your specific interactions with the one specific author we are talking about are the reason why many top authors are doing so. These are two at most weakly correlated points. It’s really not hard to imagine how they could come apart. Those interactions are not even the reason why Duncan said the same thing, as his complaints started substantially before the relevant thread where he said it more explicitly.
many top authors citing him as a top reason for why they do not want to post on the site, or comment here
I literally clarified this two comments ago, and in like 4 other comment threads you are involved in. Most of these authors cite you, in private communication. This is not a particularly complicated thing to understand. Separately, at least some top authors have publicly complained about you, but that isn’t the load-bearing part of why I wrote the above, or why I believe what I believe. We’ve already discussed this a bunch. I don’t know what you are trying to say here.
This does not mean that your specific interactions with the one specific author we are talking about are the reason why many top authors are doing so.
… nor did I claim this, nor do I think that you have claimed this…? What in the world would make you think that this is what we’re talking about? This just seems like a non sequitur.
I literally clarified this two comments ago, and in like 4 other comment threads you are involved in. Most of these authors cite you, in private communication. This is not a particularly complicated thing to understand. Separately, at least some top authors have publicly complained about you, but that isn’t the load-bearing part of why I wrote the above, or why I believe what I believe. We’ve already discussed this a bunch. I don’t know what you are trying to say here.
I am not sure how this confusion came about, but let me try to clarify. When you say—in a public statement, the purpose of which is to stake out a publicly known, “official” position, supported by publicly made arguments—that “many top authors” cite me as “a top reason for why they do not want to post on the site”, you have two (non-mutually-exclusive) options:
Point to public statements by relevant authors
Allude to private communications from relevant authors
If you just do #2, this is basically worthless. “People have said these-and-such things to me in private”, offered with no corroboration of any kind, may be hold some small weight, in explaining and justifying your actions, if you’ve built up a large amount of trust and good will. But no more.
And so, understandably, you have not relied only on #2, but have also attempted to do a lot of #1. You have attempted to point to several examples of authors who’ve supposedly made such statements, either in public, or in a way that’s verifiable. This, again, would be an entirely understandable thing to do, given your aforementioned purpose.
Naturally, when you cite such evidence, you should expect that you will be expected to actually provide it, and that it will be examined, to verify that it is what you say it is!
And in fact, much of this purported publicly available or verifiable evidence, which you have attempted to provide, has, upon examination, turned out to be flimsy at best.
Importantly, this also means that your word about the existence of the private evidence (which cannot be publicly verified) is cast into doubt.
Come on, please, you can figure out what I mean with those sentences.
Yes, many top authors cite you as a reason for why they do not want to post on the site. This does not mean that your specific interactions with the one specific author we are talking about are the reason why many top authors are doing so. These are two at most weakly correlated points. It’s really not hard to imagine how they could come apart. Those interactions are not even the reason why Duncan said the same thing, as his complaints started substantially before the relevant thread where he said it more explicitly.
I literally clarified this two comments ago, and in like 4 other comment threads you are involved in. Most of these authors cite you, in private communication. This is not a particularly complicated thing to understand. Separately, at least some top authors have publicly complained about you, but that isn’t the load-bearing part of why I wrote the above, or why I believe what I believe. We’ve already discussed this a bunch. I don’t know what you are trying to say here.
… nor did I claim this, nor do I think that you have claimed this…? What in the world would make you think that this is what we’re talking about? This just seems like a non sequitur.
I am not sure how this confusion came about, but let me try to clarify. When you say—in a public statement, the purpose of which is to stake out a publicly known, “official” position, supported by publicly made arguments—that “many top authors” cite me as “a top reason for why they do not want to post on the site”, you have two (non-mutually-exclusive) options:
Point to public statements by relevant authors
Allude to private communications from relevant authors
If you just do #2, this is basically worthless. “People have said these-and-such things to me in private”, offered with no corroboration of any kind, may be hold some small weight, in explaining and justifying your actions, if you’ve built up a large amount of trust and good will. But no more.
And so, understandably, you have not relied only on #2, but have also attempted to do a lot of #1. You have attempted to point to several examples of authors who’ve supposedly made such statements, either in public, or in a way that’s verifiable. This, again, would be an entirely understandable thing to do, given your aforementioned purpose.
Naturally, when you cite such evidence, you should expect that you will be expected to actually provide it, and that it will be examined, to verify that it is what you say it is!
And in fact, much of this purported publicly available or verifiable evidence, which you have attempted to provide, has, upon examination, turned out to be flimsy at best.
Importantly, this also means that your word about the existence of the private evidence (which cannot be publicly verified) is cast into doubt.