(Frankly, the idea that someone who says “this post is incorrect” is thereby a “troublemarker” is an attitude so egregiously corrosive to truth-seeking that I… should be shocked to see it on Less Wrong… I’m not actually shocked, I regret to say; but that is itself a judgment of the state of LW, more than anything.)
Not even remotely what I said. Your own “truth-seeking” cred does not look very pristine if you are going to engage in straw manning as blatant as that.
Edit: funny how when called on a blatant straw man, he just ignores the callout and moves on.
It’s not just “technically possible”, it’s a thing that happens all the time. I gave examples! Why are you ignoring them?
Nice sleight of hand there, but I wrote that comment before you posted those examples.
Are you suggesting that incorrect posts are actually good? Or denying the possibility of a post being incorrect? Or something else?
I suggested that there are ways in which a post can be good despite its thesis being incorrect. I named specific ways. Why are you ignoring them?
I think it is becoming increasingly clear that your only purpose here is one-upmanship, not good faith discussion. Also, I think you are scum.
Edit: just spotted this
This is a very weird thing to say, given that in this very comment you’ve reiterated the claim that contributions should be rewarded even if they’re wrong and bad.
Never said any such thing. Obviously contributions should not be rewarded if they’re bad. But I guess Said isn’t above even lying outright about the contents of a publicly visible comment. And this:
Nice sleight of hand again, but the examples you are referring to were clearly the ones in this comment, which contained actual examples of precisely the thing you were claiming takes place.
But now you conveniently pretend you were referring to an earlier comment, which did not provide any such examples but was just gesturing broadly to Gwern’s comment history to make a point about its quality.
And even if you had been referring to that comment (again, implausible), it would still be sleight of hand, because that comment wasn’t written in response to me, and you had not given examples to me in any reasonable sense.
You are clearly profoundly dishonest, and you are clearly only in this for the sake of one-upmanship. Again, reddit-tier engagement (although even redditors are rarely as bad as this)
I rather think that I know best what I was referring to, thank you.
an earlier comment, which did not provide any such examples but was just gesturing broadly to Gwern’s comment history
False. That comment linked to a specific comment thread and identified three specific comments.
that comment wasn’t written in response to me
Indeed, in accordance with a point which I have made many times, including directly in response to you, in this very discussion, that comments on a public discussion forum are often written as a one-to-many communication, not a one-to-one missive.
I rather think that I know best what I was referring to, thank you
Indeed, which is why I am confident in claiming that you are lying outright and not merely making a mistake.
False. That comment linked to a specific comment thread and identified three specific comments.
Three comments which constitute a single work and therefore only a single example of your point, and a dubious one at that, but I am getting tired of calling out what appears to be an endless stream of attempts at one-upmanship. On some level, you know exactly what you are doing, or it would not be possible for your behaviour to be so goal-oriented towards it. You know that, too. I suppose your modus operandi is that if you can win this asinine contest of one-upmanship, it justifies you in completely setting aside any critique of what it reveals about your character (that you have the soul of a Redditor)
Many such cases. You fit the stereotype to a T. Do you know that?
Not even remotely what I said. Your own “truth-seeking” cred does not look very pristine if you are going to engage in straw manning as blatant as that.
Edit: funny how when called on a blatant straw man, he just ignores the callout and moves on.
Nice sleight of hand there, but I wrote that comment before you posted those examples.
I suggested that there are ways in which a post can be good despite its thesis being incorrect. I named specific ways. Why are you ignoring them?
I think it is becoming increasingly clear that your only purpose here is one-upmanship, not good faith discussion. Also, I think you are scum.
Edit: just spotted this
Never said any such thing. Obviously contributions should not be rewarded if they’re bad. But I guess Said isn’t above even lying outright about the contents of a publicly visible comment. And this:
Truly incredible.
The examples: posted at 10:43 AM EST.
Your comment: posted at 4:55 PM EST.
Nice sleight of hand again, but the examples you are referring to were clearly the ones in this comment, which contained actual examples of precisely the thing you were claiming takes place.
But now you conveniently pretend you were referring to an earlier comment, which did not provide any such examples but was just gesturing broadly to Gwern’s comment history to make a point about its quality.
And even if you had been referring to that comment (again, implausible), it would still be sleight of hand, because that comment wasn’t written in response to me, and you had not given examples to me in any reasonable sense.
You are clearly profoundly dishonest, and you are clearly only in this for the sake of one-upmanship. Again, reddit-tier engagement (although even redditors are rarely as bad as this)
I rather think that I know best what I was referring to, thank you.
False. That comment linked to a specific comment thread and identified three specific comments.
Indeed, in accordance with a point which I have made many times, including directly in response to you, in this very discussion, that comments on a public discussion forum are often written as a one-to-many communication, not a one-to-one missive.
Indeed, which is why I am confident in claiming that you are lying outright and not merely making a mistake.
Three comments which constitute a single work and therefore only a single example of your point, and a dubious one at that, but I am getting tired of calling out what appears to be an endless stream of attempts at one-upmanship. On some level, you know exactly what you are doing, or it would not be possible for your behaviour to be so goal-oriented towards it. You know that, too. I suppose your modus operandi is that if you can win this asinine contest of one-upmanship, it justifies you in completely setting aside any critique of what it reveals about your character (that you have the soul of a Redditor)
Many such cases. You fit the stereotype to a T. Do you know that?